NATIONAL  ECONOMY 


HISTORY 


OF   THE 


AMERICAN  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM, 


ITS  EFFECTS  UPON  THE  SEVERAL  BRANCHES 


DOMESTIC  INDUSTRY. 


BY  ANDREW  W.  'YOUNG, 

Author  of  "  Science  of  Gorcrnraent,"  "  The  American  Statesman,"  etc.,  eta 


NEW-YORK: 
J.    C.    DERBY    &    N.    C.    MILLER, 

£  SPRUCE  STREET,  TRIBUNE  BUILDINGS, 
1806. 


- 

rrrv* 


Entered,  accord  Jig  to  Act  ^  >  !  c-  yi-ar  ISO),  oy 

ANDREW     W.    YOU: 

.•  tb*  t?«-k'»  Offlet  of  the  DUtnct  Court  of  tlie  United  fJ'atcs  lor  tlie  Nor*  en 
District  of  New  York. 


J.  J.  HERD,  Printer  1  >tereotyj*r 
43  Centre  5troet 


TO    THE 

x11*5   ilUii  0f  i!u   (ttiutcij   St&h 

CPO>*    WHOM    WILL    SOO^    DKVOLVH  THE    AD5IIMSTK ATIOX    OF    THK    G 

MENT  OF  THIS  GREAT    ANQ,GROWIXC.  KKPUI5LIC,  AND  UPOX  WIIO8B 

IXTELLIGKXCK     AND     PATRIOTIC     VIRTUE    ITS     FUTURE 

PROSPKRITY     ESSENTIALLY     DEPENDS, 

THIS    VOLUME 
IS    P  K S  P  E  C  T  F  U  L  L  Y    INSCRIBED. 


iviJ  35355 


PREFACE. 


THE  subject  of  the  following  pages  involves  the  interests 
of  every  American  citizen.  In  a  government  of  universal 
suffrage,  every  elector  is  in  a  measure  responsible  for  its 
right  administration.  The  theory  of  our  government  is,  that 
every  measure  of  public  policy  is  the  act  'f  the  po^p1  \  It 
presumes  that  the  representative  acts  in  accordance  ^»ih  the 
known  wishes  and  interests  of  his  constituents,  and  that  thei 
have  a  sufficient  knowledge  of  public  affairs  to  direct  him  ii. 
the  discharge  of  his  duties. 

Upon  no  question  in  political  economy  is  unanimity  of 
sentiment  more  important  than  upon  that  which  is  discussed 
in  this  work  ;  yet  there  is  perhaps  none  upon  which  opinions 
more  discordant  and  conflicting  have  prevailed.  The  decision 
of  no  other,  probably,  more  materially  affects  the  public 
interest  ;  yet  tariffs  have  been  made  and  unmade  by  the 
representatives  of  electors,  a  majority  of  whom  had  never 
bestowed  any  considerable  attention  upon  the  question 
determined  by  their  suffrages. 

Since  the  adoption  of  the  existing  policy,  in  1846,  there 
has  been  no  general  discussion  of  the  protective  system.  A 
large  portion  of  those  who  have  since  that  time  become 
invested  with  political  power,  an  incapable  of  acting  intel- 
ligently in  the  settlement  of  this  great  question.  Yet  there 
are  strong  indications  that  it  will  soon,  in  some  form,  be  again 
submitted  to  the  people. 

In  his  last  two  annual  messages  to  Congress,  the  President 
nas  recommended  a  revision  of  the  tariff  with  a  view  to  an 
increase  of  duties.  In  compliance  with  these  recommenda- 


VI 


PREFACE. 


tions,  the  House  of  Representatives^  at  its  late  session,  passed 
a  bill  for  that  purpose  ;  but  it  was  not  concurred  in  by  the 
Senate.  The  insufficiency  of  the  revenue,  under  the  present 
lo\v  tariff,  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  Treasury  ;  the  lan- 
guishing condition  of  several  of  the  more  important  branches 
of  domestic  industry,  from  the  want  of  adequate  encourage- 
ment ;  and  the  belief  that  the  financial  crisis  of  1857,  from 
the  effects  of  which  the  country  has  not  yet  fully  recovered, 
was  the  natural  result  of  a  departure  from  the  protective 
policy  ;  render  it  probable  that  a  new  attempt  will  soon  be 
made  for  its  restoration.  It  will  hardly  be  alleged  that  the 
mass  of  the  people  are  duly  prepared  to  meet  the  question. 

To  assist  in  leading  to  correct  conclusions  any  who  may 
dei.ire  to  investigate  the  subject,  is  the  design  of  this  volume. 
Th»  object  is  not,  however,  to  encourage  the  incorporation  of 
tlic  doctrine  of  protection  into  the  platform  of  any  political 
pat-ty.  A  correct  decision,  it  is  believed,  is  more  likely  to  be 
attained  when  the  public  mind  is  uninfluenced  by  considera- 
tions of  party  advantage.  If,  in  determining  this  or  any 
oilier  question,  the  people  shall  be  guided  by  an  enlightened 
aiU  impartial  judgment,  no  bad  results  need  be  apprehended. 
Should  they  chance  to  err  in  their  decision,  their  intelligence 
we  uld  enable  them  at  once  to  discover  the  error  and  to  apply 
tl»n  true  remedy. 

Tin's  work  prescribes  no  new  course  of  legislation  on  this 
subject.  It  recommends  no  departure  from  the  landmarks 

lishcd  by  the  founders  of  the  government.  It  asserts 
no  principle  which  has  not  received  the  sanction  of  Washing- 
ton, Hamilton,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe,  Adams,  and 
Jackson,  and  their  most  distinguished  cotemporarics.  A 
laborious  examination  of  this  subject  for  many  years,  has 

•TO  fully  confirmed  the  author's  faith  in  the  doctrines  of 

iiti.  .il    fathers.      A  theory   fundamentally   correct,  is 

unaffected  by  the  lapse  of  time.     A  policy  which  has  stood 

tiic  test  of  successful  experiment,  it  is  unwise  to  abandon 

:ul  one — much  more  so,  for  ono 
tLat  has  proved  iteclf  radically  defective. 


PREFACE.  T^ 

There  has  been  no  change  in  the  condition  or  policy  of  other 
commercial  nations  which  seems  to  justify  the  great  changes 
which  have  been  made  in  our  own.  Changes  have  been  made 
in  some  of  them  ;  but  they  consist  in  the  adoption  of  the 
industrial  system  recommended  by  onr  early  statesmen,  and 
furnish  additional  evidence  of  its  utility. 

This  work  is  not  an  Essay,  or  a  Treatise,  consisting  mainly 
of  the  author's  individual  opinions  and  reasonings.  It  is,  as 
its  title  declares,  a  History.  It  begins  with  the  colonial  policy 
of  Great  Britain  which  led  to  the  separation  of  the  colonies 
from  the  parent  country,  and  ultimately  to  the  establishing  of 
a  national  government  with  power  to  protect  the  people 
against  the  restrictive  measures  which  secured  to  that  coun- 
try a  monopoly  of  trade.  It  gives  a  faithful  record  of  the 
action  of  our  Government  on  this  subject,  from  time  to  time, 
sin 3e  its  organization.  The  views  of  onr  own  statesmen,  as 
expressed  in  executive  messages,  official  reports,  and  legis- 
lative debates,  will,  it  is  believed,  be  more  acceptable  to  the 
m,\5S  of  readers,  than  a  disquisition  on  the  subject  of  protec- 
tion by  the  ablest  writer.  The  opinions  of  those  men  have 
bei;:n  formed,  not  alone  from  what  appeared  theoretically 
conrect,  but  also  from  the  practical  effects  of  the  system. 
This  entitles  them  to  greater  regard  than  is  due  to  the  specu- 
lations of  any  ordinary  writer  on  this  branch  of  political 
economy. 

To  the  conviction  that  a  work  of  this  kind  is  needed,  this 
compilation  owes  its  existence.  If  it  shall  serve  to  awaken 
an ,7  considerable  portion  of  the  American  people  to  a  deeper 
in  if  rest  in  matters  of  public  concern,  and  to  aid  them  in  the 
db charge  of  their  political  duties,  it  will  have  accomplished 
itu  mission. 

August,  1860. 


CONTENTS. 


THE  PROTECTIVE   SYSTEM, 


CHAPTER  I. 

PAOB 

Early  restrictive  commercial  policy  of  Great  Britain.    Petitions  to  the  first 

Congress  for  relief.    First  tariff  act.    Historical  remarks,     -  15 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ordered  to  report  a  plan  for  the  encourage- 
ment of  manufactures.  Mr.  Hamilton's  report,  ....  25 

CHAPTER  III. 

Modification  of  the  Tariff.      Action  of  Congress  in  1809-1810.     Secretary 

Oallatin's  report.    Double  duties  imposed,  .....          39 

CHAPTER    IV. 

Encouragement  to  manufactures  recommended  by  President  Madison. 
Petitions.  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Commerce  and  Manufactures. 
Report  of  Secretary  Dallas.  Bill  reported  by  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means.  Bill  debated,  and  passed.  Acts  of  1817  and  1818,  -  -  65 

CHAPTER  V. 

Attempt  to  revise  the  tariff  of  1816.  Petitions.  Bills  reported.  Debate 
on  the  bill.  Passed  by  the  House.  Defeated  in  the  Senate  by  post- 
ponement, ---.....--  -  89 

CHAPTER    VI. 

Session  of  1820-1821.  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures.   Counter 

report  of  the  Committee  on  Agriculture, 122 


x 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  condition  of  the  country.     Tariff  bill  reported  by  Mr.  Tod  in  1824. 

Debate  on  the  bill.    Votes  en  tho  passage  of  the  bill,    -  138 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Tbo  "  Woolen*  Bill"  of  1827  introduced  by  Mr.  Maliary.  Debate  on  the 
bill  Bill  passed  by  the  House.  Defeated  in  the  Senate  by  being  laid 
on  the  table, -  170 

CHAPTER    IX. 

Harrisburg  Convention  preceding  the  tariff  of  1828.  Congress  meets  in 
December,  1827.  Secretary  Rush's  report.  Bill  reported  by  Committee 
on  Manufactures.  Debate  on  the  bill ;  its  passage  in  the  House.  De- 
bate and  passage  in  the  Senate.  Debate  on  the  bill,  and  its  passage,  •  197 

CHAPTER  X. 

A«*t  for  the  more  effectual  collection  of  duties.  Act  to  reduce  duties  on 
(ca  and  coffee.  Tariff  act  of  1832.  Clay's  resolutions  in  the  Senato 
ivlaticg  thereto.  M'Duffie's  bill  in  the  House.  Bill  of  Committee  on 
Manufactures  reported  by  Mr.  Adams,  ....  .  235 

CHAPTER    XL 

President  Jackson  on  protection.  Nullification  in  South  Carolina.  Presi- 
uent'i  proclamation.  Mr.  Verplanck's  bill  to  reduce  the  tariff.  Debate 
thereon.  Force  bill.  Adoption  by  the  House  of  Mr.  Clay's  compromise 
bill,  pending  in  the  Senate.  South  Carolina  pacified,  -  -  -  239 

CHAPTER  XII. 

State  of  the  country.  Tariff  bill  of  1842,  reported  by  Mr.  Fillmore  from 
the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means.  Bill  debated.  Also  a  bill  from 
the  Committee  on  Manufactures.  Passage  of  tho  former,  ...  286 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

Effect*  of  the  tariff  of  1842.  Remarks  of  American  and  English  papers. 
Prices  of  manufacture*  before  and  after  the  tariff,  •  310 

CHAPTER   XIV. 

Attoapt  to  reriM  the  tariff  in  1844.  McDuffie's  bill  in  the  Senate,  and 
debate  thereoo.  Farther  effect*  of  the  tariff.  Southern  opposition, .  .  327 


CONTENTS.  xi 

CHAPTER  XV. 

President  Folk's  messages  on  duties.  Secretary  Walker,' s  report.  Debate 
on  the  bUl  in  the  House— passed  by  the  House.  Debate  in  the  Senate, 
and  its  passage, 342 

CHAPTER   XVI. 

Effects  of  the  taruY  act  cf  1846.  Remarks  of  the  American  newspaper 
press.  Remarks  of  the  British  press.  Mr.  Webster's  Speech.  Benjamin 
Marshall's  letter  on  the  importation  of  goods.  Effects  of  the  tariff  on 
trade  and  the  revenue.  A  modification  of  the  tariff  recommended  by 
President  Buchanan.  Meeting  of  the  friends  of  National  Industry  in 
Philadelphia, 382 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

Constitutionality  of  a  protective  tariff  considered.     Views  of  Washington, 

Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe,  Jackson,  and  others,        ....        393 

CHAPTER  XVIIL 

The  expediency  of  a  protective  tariff.  Community  of  interests  and  diver- 
sification of  labor.  Authorities  cited.  Effect  of  protection  upon  agri- 
culture. Jackson's  letter  to  Dr.  Coleman.  Advantages  of  a  home 
market.  Effect  of  the  tariff  on  prices.  Objections  considered.  Protec- 
tion to  commerce.  Effect  of  the  tariff  upon  revenue,  -  *  -  -  -  4C9 

CHAPTER    XIX. 

Brief  review  of  the  foregoing  history.  Commercial  policies  of  England, 
France,  Spain,  Germany,  Russia,  &c. ,  compared.  Conclusion.  -  -  4->'J 


THE 


PROTECTIVE    SYSTEM 


CHAPTER   I. 

restrictive  commercial  policy  of  Great  Britain.      Petitions  to  the  first  Con 
gress  for  relief.     First  tariff  act.     Historical  remarks. 

Lv  order  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  tariff  question, 
it  is  necessary  to  recur  to  the  early  restrictive  policy  of  Great 
Britain.  The  protective  policy  of  this  country  had  its  origin 
in  the  early  attempts  of  that  Power  to  monopolize  the  trade 
of  her  American  colonies. 

While  the  Dutch  were  getting  possession  of  a  large  part 
of  the  carrying  trade  of  the  world,  and  pursuing  a  profitable 
commerce  with  some  of  the  British  colonial  possessions,  the 
memorable  Navigation  Act  was  passed  by  the  Commons  in 
1651,  under  the  protectorate  of  Oliver  Cromwell.  By  this 
act  it  was  ordained,  that  no  merchandise  should  be  imported 
into  his  Majesty's  plantations,  or  exported  from  them,  but  in 
vessels  built  in  England  or  its  plantations  ;  and  that  no 
sugar,  tobacco,  ginger,  cotton,  indigo,  or  other  articles  enu- 
merated, should  be  exported  from  the  colonies  to  any  other 
country  than  such  as  belonged  to  the  crown  of  Great  Britain. 
Soon  after  the  restoration  of  Charles  II,  this  law  was  re- 
enacted,  (1663,)  with  additional  restrictions.  Not  satisfied 
with  the  monopoly  of  the  export  trade  of  the  colonies,  Parlia- 
ment, determined  to  effect  a  similar  restriction  of  the  import 
trade,  enacted,  that  "  no  commodity  of  the  growth  or  manu- 
facture of  Europe,  shall  be  imported  into  any  of  the  King's 
plantations  in  Asia,  Africa,  or  America,  but  what  shall  have 
teen  shipped  in  England,  Wales,  or  the  town  of  Berwick,  and 
in  English  built  shipping,  whereof  the  master  and  three- 


TUK  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  I. 

lonr'th's'  6i"  the  mariners  are  English,  and  carried  directly 
thence  to  the  said  plantations  ;"  excepting  salt  from  any  part 
of  Europe  for  the  American  fisheries,  wines  from  Madeira  and 
the  Azores,  and  provisions  from  Scotland,  for  the  plantations. 
The  objects  of  this  selfish  policy  were  declared  in  the  pre- 
amble of  this  act  to  be,  "the  keeping  of  his  Majesty's  sub- 
jects in  the  plantations  in  a  firmer  dependence  ;"  "the  in- 
crease of  English  shipping  ;"  and  "  the  vent  of  English 
woolens  and  other  manufactures  and  commodities." 

This  was  considered  by  Sir  William  Blackstone  "  the  most 
beneficial  for  the  trade  and  commerce  of  these  kingdoms, 
and,  as  he  says,  was  designed  "  to  mortify  our  [the  British] 
sugar  islands  which  were  disaffected  to  the  Parliament 
[under  Cromwell,]  arid  still  held  out  for  Charles  II,  by  stop- 
ping the  gainful  trade,  which  they  carried  on  with  the  Dutch, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  clip  the  wings  of  these  our  opulent 
and  aspiring  neighbors.'7  Although  aimed  particularly  at 
the  West  Indies,  this  law  of  course  extended  its  provisions 
to  all  other  British  colonies,  and  among  them  to  those  estab- 
lished on  the  American  coast. 

The  colonists  were  for  a  time  permitted  to  export  the  enu- 
merated commodities  from  one  plantation  to  another,  with- 
out duty.  But  even  this  privilege  was  not  long  enjoyed. 
In  1072,  duties  were  imposed  upon  sugars,  tobacco,  indigo, 
wool,  cotton,  &c.,  transported  from  one  colony  to  another. 

To  keep  down  the  enterprise  and  industry  of  the  country, 
the  House  of  Commons,  in  1731,  called  upon  the  Board  of 
Trade  and  Plantations  to  make  a  report  "  with  respect  to 
any  laws  made,  manufactures  set  up,  or  trade  carried  on  in 
the  colonies,  detrimental  to  the  trade,  navigation,  and 
manufactures  of  Great  Britain."  The  manufactures  most  in- 
jurious to  the  trade  and  manufactures  of  the  parent  country, 
were  those  of  wool,  flax,  iron,  paper,  hats,  and  leather.  Hats, 
it  appeared,  had  been  made  in  considerable  quantities,  and 
even  exported  to  foreign  countries.  An  act  was  therefore 
passed  in  1732,  forbidding  hats  or  felts  to  be  exported  from 
the  colonies,  or  even  "  to  be  loaded  on  a  horse,  cart,  or  other 
carriage,  for  transportation  from  one  plantation  to  another." 
And  in  1750,  a  law  was  passed  which  prohibited  "the  erec- 
tion or  continuance  of  any  mill  or  other  engine  for  slitting  or 
rolling  iron,  or  any  phiting  forgo  to  w«»rk  with  a  tilt  hammer, 
or  any  furnace  for  making  steel,  in  the  colonies,  under  pen- 
alty of  £200."  Every  such  mill,  engine,  forge,  or  furnace, 
was  declared  to  be  a  a.  .  :ncc,  which  the  governors  of 


1797.]  EARLY  BRITISH  POLICY.  15 

the  provinces,  on  information,  were  bound  to  abate,  under 
the  penalty  of  £500,  within  thirty  days. 

This  policy,  with  some  modifications,'  was  continued  by 
Great  Britain  until  the  revolution,  when  regular  commercial 
intercourse  between  the  two  countries  was  interrupted.  And 
amidst  the  cruisers  of  the  enemy,  few  of  the  manufactures  of 
other  countries  could  be  brought  across  the  ocean,  and  these 
only  at  high  prices.  Our  people  being  dependent  upon  their 
own  resources  for  supplies,  a  fresh  impulse  was  given  to 
home  manufactures. 

The  peace  of  1783,  brought  with  it  the  former  difficulties, 
to  a  considerable  extent.  The  influx  of  foreign  goods  was 
disastrous  to  the  mechanical  and  manufacturing  industry  of 
the  country.  Although  the  States  were  politically  indepen- 
dent, it  was  impossible  to  countervail  the  policy  of  "other 
nations.  Each  State  having,  under  the  Confederation,  the 
right  to  regulate  its  own  trade,  it  imposed  upon  foreign  pro- 
ductions, as  well  as  those  of  its  sister  States,  such  duties  as 
its  own  interests  seemed  to  dictate.  The  States  attempted, 
by  their  separate  navigation  laws,  to  secure  their  trade  to 
their  own  vessels  ;  and  the  selfish  policy  of  some  States 
counteracted  the  efforts  of  others.  As  the  Congress  had  no 
power  to  lay  duties  or  regulate  trade,  and  as  the  States  could 
not  agree  upon  a  uniform  rate  of  duties,  foreign  nations 
passed  such  laws  as  they  judged  most  likely  to  destroy  our 
commerce  and  extend  their  own. 

Especially  was  this  the  policy  of  Great  Britain.  Our 
trade  with  her  West  India  colonies  was  prohibited  ;  and  by 
the  enforcement  of  her  navigation  acts,  our  navigation  Was 
nearly  destroyed.  Foreign  vessels  and  goods  being  freely 
admitted  into  the  States,  while  ours  were  burthened  with 
heavy  duties  in  foreign  ports,  both  the  prices  of  goods  im- 
ported and  the  prices  of  our  exports,  were  subject  to  the  will 
of  foreigners  ;  and  the  money  of  our  citizens  was  rapidly 
passing  into  the  pockets  of  British  manufacturers  and  mer- 
chants. In  describing  the  state  of  the  country  at  that  time, 
a  distinguished  American  statesman  thus  remarks  : 

"  In  the  comparative  condition  of  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  not  a  hatter,  a  boot  or  shoe  maker,  a  saddler, 
or  a  brass  founder,  could  carry  on  his  business,  except  in 
the  coarsest  and  most  ordinary  productions  of  their  various 
trades,  under  the  pressure-  of  foreign  competition.  Thus  was 
presented  the  extraordinary  and  calamitous  spectacle  of  a 
(successful  revolution,  wholly  failing  of  its  ultimate  object, 


16  THE  PROTECTIVE  Si'STEM.  [Chap.  I 

The  people  of  America  had  gone  to  war,  not  for  names,  but 
for  things.  It  was  not  merely  to  change  a  government  ad- 
ministered by  kings,  princes,  and  ministers,  for  a  govern- 
ment administered  by  presidents,  and  secretaries,  and  mem- 
bers of  Congress.  It  was  to  redress  their  own  grievances, 
to  improve  their  own  condition,  to  throw  off  the  bnrden 
which  the  colonial  system  laid  on  their  industry.  To  attain 
these  objects,  they  endured  incredible  hardships,  and  bore 
and  suffered  almost  beyond  the  measure  of  humanity.  And 
when  their  independence  was  attained,  they  found  it  was  a 
piece  of  parchment.  The  arm  which  had  struck  for  it  in  the 
field,  was  palsied  in  the  work  shop  ;  the  industry  which  had 
been  burdened  in  the  colonies,  was  crushed  in  the  free  States  ; 
arid,  at  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  the  mechanics  and  manu 
facturers  of  the  country  found  themselves,  in  the  bitterness 
of  their  hearts,  independent — and  ruined," 

To  remedy  this  deplorable  state  of  things,  efforts  were 
made  to  effect  an  alteration  of  the  articles  of  Confederation, 
so  as  to  confer  upon  Congress  the  power  of  regulating  the 
trade  of  the  States  with  foreign  nations  and  with  each  other, 
but  without  success.  A  meeting  was  then  proposed,  to  con- 
sist of  commissioners  or  delegates  from  the  several  States, 
to  devise  and  to  agree  upon  a  uniform  system  of  regulations, 
and  to  report  to  the  States  an  act  which,  when  ratified  Ly 
them,  would  enable  Congress  to  provide  for  this  object.  Ihc 
meeting  was  held  in  September,  1786.  But  as  only  five 
States — New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware, 
and  Virginia — were  represented  in  the  meeting,  the  commis- 
sioners thought  it  unadvisable  to  proceed  to  the  business  for 
which  they  had  been  appointed  ;  but  they  recommended  to 
the  Congress  and  the  States  a  convention  to  be  held  in  Phila- 
delphia on  the  second  Monday  of  May  next,  [1787,]  rot  only 
to  give  Congress  the  power  to  regulate  commerce,  but  to 
remedy  other  acknowledged  defects  of  the  Confederation. 
This  recommendation  was  carried  into  effect.  The  conven- 
tion was  held,  and  the  present  Constitution  was  formed,  in 
which  this  power,  with  many  other  necessary  powers,  was 
conferred  upon  Congress. 

To  the  Constitution  all  classes  of  the  people  now  looked 
for  relief.  Its  adoption  was  therefore  awaited  with  deep  so- 
licitude. Means  of  partial  relief  had  been  found  in  a  plan  of 
voluntary  associations,  and  an  appeal  to  the  patriotism  of 
their  fell  -:ich  an  association  was  formed  in 

Boston  in  1787  or  1788,  and  a  circular  letter  was  addressed 


1738.J  TRADESMEN'S  CORRESPONDENCE.  17 

by  them  to  their  brethren  throughout  the  Union.  The  fol- 
lowing letter  from  the  "  Tradesmen  and  Manufacturers  of 
New  York,"  in  reply  to  this  circular,  expresses  the  feelingg 
and  hopes  with  which  the  laboring  classes  of  the  country, 
particularly  the  manufacturers  and  mechanics,  looked  for- 
ward to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  : 

"  Letter  from  the  Tradesmen  and  Manufacturers  of  New  York 

to  the  Tradesmen  and  Manufacturers  of  Boston. 

NEW  YORK,  17th  Nov..  1788. 

"  GENTLEMEN  : — The  mechanics  and  manufacturers  of  the  city  of  New 
York  have  long  contemplated  and  lamented  the  evils  which  a  pernicious 
system  of  commerce  has  introduced  into  this  country,  and  the  obstacles 
with  which  it  has  opposed  the  extension  and  improvement  of  American 
manufactures  ;  and  having  taken  into  consideration  your  circular  letter, 
wherein  those  evils  and  their  remedies  are  pointed  out,  in  a  just  and 
striking  manner,  have  authorized  us  to  communicate  to  you,  in  answer 
to  your  address,  their  sentiments  on  the  interesting  subject. 

"  It  is  with  the  highest  pleasure  that  we  embrace  this  opportunity  to 
express  to  you  their  approbation  of  the  liberal  and  patriotic  attempt  of 
the  tradesmen  and  manufacturers  of  your  respectable  town. 

"  JEvery  zealous  and  enlightened  friend  to  the  prosperity  of  this  coun- 
try must  view,  with  peculiar  regret,  the  impediments  with  which  for 
eign  importations  have  embarrassed  the  infant  arts  in  America.  We 
are  sensible  that  they  are  not  only  highly  unfavorable  to  every  mechan- 
ical improvement,  but  that  they  nourish  a  spirit  of  dependence,  which< 
tends  in  some  degree  to  defeat  the  purposes  of  our  late  revolution,  and 
tarnish  the  luster  of  our  character.  We  are  sensible  that  long  habit 
has  fixed,  in  the  minds  of  the  people,  an  unjust  predilection  for  foreign 
productions,  and  has  rendered  them  too  regardless  of  the  arguments  and 
complaints  with  which  the  patriotic  and  discerning  have  addressed  them 
from  every  quarter.  These  prejudices  have  become  confirmed  and  rad- 
ical ;  and  we  are  convinced  that  a  strong  and  united  effort  is  necessary 
to  expel  them.  We  are  happy  that  the  tradesmen  of  Boston  have  led 
the  vay  to  a  general  and  efficient  exertion  in  this  important  cause. 

"  The  impression  we  feel  of  the  utility  and  expediency  of  encouraging 
our  domestic  manufactures,  is  in  perfect  correspondence  with  your  own  ; 
and  we  shall  most  cheerfully  unite  our  endeavors  with  those  of  our  breth- 
ren throughout  the  Union  ;  and  shall  be  ready  to  adopt  every  measure 
which  will  have  a  tendency  to  facilitate  the  great  design. 

"  The  legislature  of  our  State,  convinced  of  the  propriety  of  cher- 
ishing our  manufactures  in  their  early  growth,  have  made  some  provi- 
sions for  that  purpose.  We  have  no  doubt  that  more  comprehensive 
measures  will  in  time  be  taken  by  them.  But  on  the  confederated  ex- 
ertions of  our  brethren,  and  especially  on  the  patronage  of  the  Federal 
Government,  we  rest  our  most  flattering  hopes  of  success. 

"  In  order  to  support  and  improve  the  union  and  harmonv  of  the 
American  manufacturers,  and  to  render  a^  systematic  and  uniform  _  as 
possible  their  designs  for  the  common  benefit,  \ve  perfectly  concur  w^L 


18  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  L 

you  in  the  propriety  of  establishing  a  reciprocal  aud  anreserved  com- 
munication. When  our  views,  like  our  interests,  are  combined  and  con- 
centrated, our  petitions  to  the  Federal  Legislature  will  assume  the  tone 
and  complexion  of  the  public  wishes,  and  will  have  a  proportionable 
weight  and  influence. 

••  \\'e  request  you  to  favor  us  with  the  continuation  of  your  -corres 
pondence,  and  to  transmit  to  us,  from  time  to  time,  such  resolutions  and 
proposals  of  your  association  as  may  be  calculated  for  the  promotion  of 
our  mutual  interests. 

"  We  are.  with  the  highest  respect,  &c." 

As  the  Constitution  was  successively  adopted  in  each  State, 
public  rejoicings  took  place  in  many  of  the  towns  and  cities 
of  the  States,  both  North  and  South.  Upon  the  banners  of 
the  manufacturers  in  Philadelphia,  was  inscribed  the  motto  : 
"  May  the  Union  Government  protect  the  Manufacturers  of 
America  !'' 

A  quorum  of  the  House  of  Representatives  under  the  new 
Constitution  was  formed,  for  the  first  time,  on  the  1st  of 
April,  1789.  Within  one  week  from  that  day,  Mr.  Madison 
brought  forward  the  subject  of  tbe  revenue  system,  as  the 
most  important  which  required  the  attention  of  Congress. 
Three  days  after  the  discussion  commenced,  a  petition  was 
presented  from  "  the  Tradesmen,  Mechanics,  and  others  of 
the  Town  of  Baltimore,"  in  which  they  say  : 

"  The  happy  period  having-  now  arrived  when  the  United 
States  are  placed 'in  a  new  situation,  and  the  adoption  of  the 
General  Government  gives  one  sovereign  Legislature  the  sole 
and  exclusive  power  of  laying  duties  upon  imports,  your  pe- 
titioners rejoice  at  the  prospect  this  affords  them  ;  and 
America,  freed  from  the  commercial  shackles  which  have  so 
long  bound  her,  will  see  and  pursue  her  true  interest,  becom- 
ing; independent  in  fact  as  well  as  in  name.  And  they  con- 
fidently hope  that  the  encouragement  and  protection  of 
American  manufactures  will  claim  the  earliest  attention  of 
the  supreme  Legislature  of  the  nation  ;  as  it  is  a  universally 
acknowledged  truth,  that  the  United  States  contain,  within 
their  limits,  resources  amply  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  be- 
come a  great  manufacturing  country,  and  only  want  the  pa- 
tronage and  support  of  a  wise,  energetic  government."  And 
the  petitioners  pray  for  an  act  "  imposing  on  all  foreign  arti- 
cles which  can  be  made  in  America,  such  duties  as  will  give 
a  just  and  decided  preference  to  their  labors,  and  thereby 
discouraging  that  trade  which  tends  so  materially  to  injure 
them  and  i  h  their  country,  aud  which  may  also,  in 

their  -  .  contribute  to  the  discharge  of  the  na- 

tional debt  and  to  the  due  support  of  Government." 


789.]  PETITIONS  TO  CONGRESS.  19 

This  petition  was  followed,  the  noxt  day,  by  one  from  the 
shipwrights  of  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  stating1  the  dis- 
tress they  were  in  from  the  decline  of  that  branch  of  the  busi- 
ness, and  the  present  situation  of  the  United  States,  and  pray- 
ing "  that  the  wisdom  and  policy  of  the  National  Legislature 
may  be  directed  to  such  measures,  in  a  general  regulation  of 
trade,  and  the  establishment  of  a  proper  navigation  act,  as 
will  relieve  the  particular  distresses  of  the  petitioners,  in 
common  with  those  of  their  fellow  shipwrights  throughout 
the  Union." 

In  a  similar  memorial  from  citizens  of  New  York,  the  peti- 
tioners say  : 

"  Your  petitioners  conceive  that  their  countrymen  have 
been  deluded  by  an  appearance  of  plenty  ;  by  the  profusion 
of  foreign  articles  which  has  deluged  the  country  ;  and  thus 
have  mistaken  excessive  importations  for  a  flourishing  trade. 
To  this  deception  they  impute  a  continuance  of  that  immode- 
rate prepossession  in  favor  of  foreign  commodities  which  has 
been  the  principal  cause  of  their  distresses,  and  the  subject 
of  their  complaint. 

<!<  Wearied  by  their  fruitless  exertions,  your  petitioners  have 
U'Hg  looked  forward  with  anxiety  for  the  establishment  of  a 
government  which  would  check  the  growing  evil,  and  extend 
a  protecting  hand  to  the  interests  of  commerce  and  the  arts. 
Such  a  government  is  now  established To  your  honora- 
ble body  the  mechanics  and  manufacturers  of  New  York  look 
up  with  confidence,  convinced  that,  as  the  united  voice  of 
America  has  furnished  you  the  means,  so  your  knowledge  ot 
th<;  common  wants  has  given  you  the  spirit  to  unbind  our  fet- 
teis,  and  rescue  our  country  from  disgrace  and  ruin." 

A  few  days  afterward,  another  petition  was  presented  from 
the  inhabitants  of  Boston,  of  which  the  following  is  an  extract : 

"  Your  petitioners  need  not  inform  Congress,  that,  on  the 
revival  of  our  mechanical  arts  and  manufactures,  depend  the 
wealth  and  prosperity  of  the  Northern  States  ;  nor  can  we 
forbear  mentioning  to  your  honors,  that  the  citizens  of  these 
States  conceive  the  object  of  their  independence  but  halt'  ob- 
tained,  till  those  national  purposes  are  established  on  a  per- 
manent and  extensive  basis  by  the  legislative  acts  of  the 
Federal  Government.  Unless  these  important  branches  are 
supported,  we  humbly  conceive  that  our  agriculture  must 
greatly  decline,  as  the  impoverished  state  of  our  seaports  will 
eventually  lessen  the  demand  for  the  produce  of  our  lands. 
•  "  Your  petitioners  formerly  experienced  the  patronage  of 


20  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chfip.  1. 

this  State  Legislature,  in  their  act  of  laying  duties  and  pro- 
hibitions on  certain  articles  of  manufacture,  which  encourages 
your  petitioners  to  request  that  heavy  duties  ma}'  be  laid  up- 
on such  articles  as  are  manufactured  by  our  own  citizens, 
humbly  conceiving  that  the  impost  is  not  solely  considered 
by  Congress  as  an  object  of  revenue,  but,  in  its  operation,  in- 
tended to  exclude  such  importations,  and  ultimately  establish 
these  several  branches  of  manufacture  among  ourselves." 

In  pursuance  of  these  and  numerous  other  petitions,  as  well 
as  from  the  wants  of  the  Government,  the  first  impost  law 
was  passed.  This  law  was,  excepting  only  the  law  prescrib- 
ing the  oaths  of  office,  the  first  which  was  passed  under  the 
new  government.  .  In  the  long  debate  upon  it,  it  seems  to 
have  been  generally  conceded  that  Congress  were  bound  to 
lay  duties  that  would  encourage  the  manufacturing  industry 
of  the  country,  and  that  they  possessed  the  constitutional 
power. 

Mr.  Madison  said  :  "  The  States  that  are  most  advanced 
in  population,  and  ripe  for  manufactures,  ought  to  have  their 
particular  interest  attended  to  in  some  degree.  While  these 
States  retained  the  power  of  making  regulations  of  trade, 
they  had  the  power  to  protect  and  cherish  such  institutions. 
By  adopting  the  present  Constitution,  they  have  thrown  the 
exercise  of  this  power  into  other  hands.  They  must  have 
done  this  with  the  expectation  that  those  interests  would  not 
be  neglected  here."  Again  :  "  Duties  laid  upon  imported 
articles  may  have  an  effect  which  comes  within  the  idea  of 
national  prudence.  It  may  happen  that  materials  for  manu- 
factures may  grow  up  without  any  encouragement  for  this 
purpose.  It  has  been  the  case  in  some  of  the  States.  But 
in  others,  regulations  have  been  provided,  and  have  suc- 
ceeded in  producing  some  establishments,  which  ought  not 
to  be  allowed  to  perish  from  the  alteration  which  has  taken 
place.  It  would  be  cruel  to  neglect  them,  and  turn  their  in- 
dustry to  other  channels  ;  for  it  is  not  possible  for  the  hand 
of  man  to  shift  from  one  employment  to  another,  without  be- 
ing injured  by  the  change.  There  may  be  some  manufac- 
tures,  which,  being  once  formed,  can  advance  toward  perfec- 
tion without  any  adventitious  aid  ;  while  others,  for  want  of 
the  fostering  hand  of  Government,  will  be  unable  to  go  on  at 
all.  Lf"_ri.-lativ<>  attention  will  be  therefore  necessary  to  col- 
lect the  pror.f-r  objects  for  this  purpose."  The  objects  of  this 
net  v  1  in  the  preamble  to  be,  "for  the  support  of 

"rnrm-nt.  the  discharge  of  the  debts  of  the  United  States, 
for  the  encouragement  and  protection  of  manufactures. 


RATES  OF  DUTIES. 


21 


The  following  is  a  list  of  the  principal  articles  upon  which 
duties  were  imposed  by  this  act,  with  the  amount  of  duty 
upon  each  : 


Spirits  Jamaica  proof  (Tal  .... 

cts. 
...10 

Steel,                         112  Ibs    .. 

cts, 
..56 

•'        all  other             " 

8 

Xails  and  spikes            Ib 

.     l 

Wine     Madeira              "   .  .  .  . 

.    .18 

Fish,  pickled                 barrel  . 

.   75 

"        all  other             " 

10 

"     dried                      Quintal 

56 

Beer  ale  &c  in  ca^k^    "   .... 

5 

Teas,    imported    from 

"     "  in  bottles,        doz  
Molasses                       ffal    .  • 

..20 
2* 

China   or   India,    in 
American  vessels  *  — 

Su°"ar    brown.             Ib  

...   1 

Tea,    bohea,                   Ib  

..  6 

"        loaf                   " 

3 

"    souchong  &-  other 

"         all  other            "  

.     U 

black,                           ((   ... 

..10 

Coffee                              "     . 

9l 

"      hysons                    " 

^0 

Candles  tallow               "  

o 

"      other  oreon            " 

12 

"         wax  or  sperrn  " 

6 

If  imported   from  Eu- 

Cheese                           <c     ... 

..   4 

rope  •  — 

Soap                                "  

2 

Tea,     bohea,                  Ib  

..10 

Tobacco    manufact       "r 

6 

"    souchon0"  &  other 

Snuff                              "     .. 

10 

black,                         "  ... 

13 

Indigo                            ".  . 

..16 

"      hvsons                   "  

..26 

\Vool  &  cotton  cnrchi    doz 

50 

"      other  Teen          " 

16 

Salt                               bush  .  . 

...  6 

If  imported  in  any  other 

Coal,                               "  

..   2 

manner  than  as  above 

Boot*'                            pair 

.  50 

mentioned  '  — 

Shoes  leather                 "  

7 

Tea,     bohea                    "  

..15 

"       silk  or  stuff        " 

10 

;'      souchon01"      or 

Cables                        112  Ibs. 

75 

other  black,                "  

.   22 

Cordage  tarred               " 

"       hysons                  " 

45 

"  uu  tarred  &  yarn     " 

90 

"      other  frreen          "   ...  . 

27 

Twine,  or  pack-thread,   ".. 

.200 

Among  those  articles  which  were  subject  to  ad  valorem  du- 
ties, were  the  following  : 

On  all  goods,  other  than  teas,  imported  from  China  or  In- 
dia, in  vessels  not  built  or  owned  by  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  12 J  per  cent. 

On  looking  glasses,  window  and  other  glass,  (except  black 
quart  bottles,)  on  china,  stone  and  earthen  ware,  gunpowder, 
paints  ground  in  oil,  gold  and  silver  leaf,  and  gold  and  silver 
lace,  10  per  cent. 

On  paper,  cabinet  ware,  buttons,  saddles,  leather  gloves, 
hats  of  beaver,  fur,  or  wool,  millinery  ready  made,  iron  cast- 
ings and  slit  and  rolled  iron,  leather  and  manufactures  of 
leathei,  clothing  ready  made,  brushes,  gold,  silver,  and  plated 
ware,  and  jewelry  and  paste  work,  anchors,  and  tin  and  pew 
ter  ware,  7  J  per  cent. 

On  coaches,  chariots,  and  othe)  carriages,  15  per  cent. 


22  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap  f 

On  all  other  goods,  5  per  cent,  on  the  value  at  the  place  of 
importation,  except  saltpeter,  tin  in  pigs,  tin  plates,  lead,  old 
pewter,  iron  and  brass  wire,  copper  in  plates,  wool,  cotton, 
dye-stuffs,  raw  hides,  beaver  and  other  furs  and  deer  skins. 

On  hemp,  after  the  first  of  December,  1790,  imported  as 
aforesaid,  60  cents  per  112  Ibs.  ;  on  cotton,  3  cents  per  pound. 

A  discount  of  10  percent,  on  all  the  duties  imposed  by  this 
act,  was  to  be  allowed  on  all  goods  imported  in  American 
vessels. 

Duties  paid  on  goods  which  should  be  exported  within  one 
year,  were  to  be  refunded,  except  a  small  per  centage  in  con- 
sideration of  the  expense  of  the  entry  and  safe  keeping 
thereof. 

This  act  was  to  be  in  force  until  the  1st  day  of  June,  1796, 
and  thence  until  the  end  of  the  next  succeeding  session  of 
Congress,  and  no  longer. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  schedule,  that  the  bene- 
fit of  the  protecting  principle  was  not  confined  to  the  manu- 
factures of  the  Middle  and  Northern  States,  but  was  fully  ex- 
tended to  the  agricultural  products  of  the  South.  The  duty 
on  manufactured  tobacco,  (the  only  form  in  which  that  arti- 
cle could  compete  with  American  tobacco,)  was  a  tax  on  the 
labor  employed  in  the  manufacture,  and  on  the  consumption 
of  the  article,  for  the  benefit  of  the  planter.  On  hemp,  an  ar- 
ticle of  prime  necessity  to  the  navigating  States,  a  high  duty 
was  laid.  And  on  cotton,  a  heavy  duty  of  three  cents  a  pound 
was  laid.  This  was  an  important  material  of  household  manu- 
facture at  the  North,  at  an  early  period  ;  although  the  manu- 
facture on  a  large  scale,  and  by  improved  machinery,  did  not 
take  place  till  shortly  before  the  passage  of  this  act.  At  that 
period,  cotton  mills  were  erected  in  Rhode  Island,  Massachu- 
setts, and  other  places  ;  and  duties  were  laid  in  some  States 
for  the  encouragement  of  the  manufacture. 

The  cotton  used  at  the  North  was  all  imported,  principally 
from  the  West  Indies,  no  more  being  then  raised  in  the  South- 
ern States  than  was  consumed  in  domestic  use.  Hence,  the 
duty  was  laid,  not  so  much  to  encourage  and  protect,  as  to 
create  its  culture  in  the  United  States,  as  appears  from  the 
proceeding's  of  Congress.  When  the  foregoing  act  passed  the 
House  of  Representatives,  the  raw  materials  of  certain  manu- 
I':  *  flu  res,  and  among  them  cotton,  were  left  duty  free.  In  the 
Donate,  when  the  duty  on  this  article  was  inserted  in  the 
I  ill,  a  member  from  South  Carolina  said  the  production  of 
cotton  was  in  c&ntemplati'.n  in  South  Carolina  and  Georgia; 


17S9.J  HISTORICAL  REMARKS.  23 

and  "  if  good  seed  could  be  procured,  he  hoped  it  might  suc- 
ceed." "  On  this  hope,  the  duty  was  imposed  ;  and  a  tax, 
amounting  probably  to  8  or  10  per  cent,  was  laid  upon  the 
raw  material  of  the  infant  manufacture,  at  the  same  time  that 
the  duties  laid  on  the  imported  fabric,  by  some  of  the  State 
laws,  were  reduced.  On  the  5th  December,  1791,  Gen.  Ham- 
ilton, by  order  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  made  his  fa- 
mous report  on  manufactures,  in  which  he  states,  '  that  the 
present  duty  of  three  cents  per  pound  on  the  foreign  raw  ma- 
terial was  undoubtedly  a  serious  impediment  to  the  manu- 
factures of  cotton  •/  and  that '  a  repeal  of  it  is  indispensable'  for 
'the  prosperity  of  the  manufacturers.  It  was  nevertheless  not 
repealed.  Thus,  in  the  infancy  of  this  manufacture  in  the 
Northern  and  Middle  States,  struggling  as  it  was,  under  a  re- 
duced duty,  against  the  machinery  of  Arkwright,  Hargraves, 
and  Watt,  a  heavy  burden  was  laid  upon  the  raw  material, 
to  enable  the  planters  of  the  Southern  States  to  explore  the 
tropics,  from  the  West  Indies  to  the  Philippines,  in  search  of 
a  species  of  cotton  seed  which  would  thrive  in  their  climate. 
For  four  or  five  years  this  duty  pressed,  with  unmitigated 
weight,  on  the  manufactures  of  the  .Northern  and  Middle 
States,  both  household  and  machinery.  There  was  not  a 
pound  of  cotton  spun — no,  not  for  candle-wicks  to  afford  light 
to  the  humble  industry  of  the  cottage,  that  did  not  pay  this 
duty  to  the  Southern  planter  for  four  or  five  years. 

"  In  1794,  when  Mr.  Jay  negotiated  the  treaty  with  Great 
Britain,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  known  to  that  distin- 
guished statesman,  that  cotton  was  raised  for  exportation  in 
the  United  States  ;  and  he  accordingly  admitted  it  among  the 
articles  not  to  be  exported  from  the  United  States  in  Ameri- 
can bottoms.  Even  as  late  as  1796,  I  find  in  the  journals  of 
Congress,  that  a  petition  from  the  proprietors  of  a  cotton  mill 
~  the  Brandy  wine,  who  prayed  for  the  repeal  of  the  duty  on 
the  raw  material,  and  the  increase  of"  that  on  cotton  goods, 
was  rejected  by  the  Committee  of  Commerce  arid  Manufac- 
ture?, on  the  grounds  that  the  existing  duty  afforded  suffi- 
cient protection,  and  that  '  to  repeal  the  duty  on  raw  cotton 
imported,  would  be  to  damp  the  growth  of  cotton  in  our  own 
country.'  "  * 

The  next  act  passed  by  this  Congress,  was  "  An  act  im- 


*  Edward  Everett's  Address  at  the  Fourth  Annual  Fair  of  the  American 
Institute,  held  in  October,  1831 ;  from  which  several  other  facts  in  this 
Chapter  are  taken. 


24  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  }• 

posing  duties  on  tunnage,"  or  a  navigation  act.  The  duties 
were  as  follows  : 

On  ships  or  vessels  owned  wholly  by  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  at  the  rate  of  6  cents  per  tun.  On  ships  or  vessels 
thereafter  built  in  the  United  States,  owned  wholly  or  in  part 
by  subjects  of  foreign  Powers,  30  cents  per  tun.  On  all  other 
vessels,  50  cents  per  tun.  American  vessels  employed  in  the 
coasting  trade,  were  to  pay  tunnage  no  ofteuer  than  once  a 
year.  Foreign  vessels  in  the  coastwise  transportation  of 
American  produce  or  manufactures,  were  to  pay  50  cents  a 
tun,  on  each  entry. 

Thus  we  see  how  promptly  Congress  exercised  the  powers 
granted  by  the  Constitution,  to  lay  duties  for  revenue  and  the 
regulation  of  commerce  ;  a  power,  the  want  of  which  had  been 
so  severely  felt  under  the  confederation,  and  had,  as  we  have 
seen,  more  than  any  other  cause,  led  to  the  calling  of  the  con- 
vention that  framed  the  Constitution.  This  is  the  more  de- 
serving of  notice,  from  the  fact  that  the  power  of  Congress 
to  encourage  domestic  manufactures  by  protective  duties, 
which  seems  to  have  been  then  universally  conceded,  has, 
Bince  that  time,  leen  seriously  questioned. 


17S1.J  SECRETARY  HAMILTON'S  REPORT.  25 


CHAPTER   II. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ordered  to  report  a  plan  for  the  encouragement  of 
manufactures.     Mr.  Hamilton's  report. 

CONGRESS  having  continued  in  session  until  the  29th  of  Sep- 
tember without  completing  its  business,  the  two  Houses 
agreed  to  a  recess  to  continue  until  the  1st  Monday  in  Janu- 
ary, 1790  ;  on  which  day  they  again  assembled. 

The  President,  in  his  Message,  calls  the  attention  of  Con- 
gress to  "the  advancement  of  agriculture,  commerce,  and 
manufactures."  And  on  the  15th  of  January,  the  House  of 
Representatives  ordered  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  "  to 
report  a  proper  plan,  conformably  to  the  recommendation  of 
the  President,  for  the  encouragement  and  promotion  of  such 
manufactures  as  would  tend  to  render  the  United  States  in- 
dependent of  other  nations  for  essential,  particularly  for 
military  supplies." 

At  the  last  session  of  the  2d  Congress,  begun  at  Philadel- 
phia, October  24th,  1791,  Secretary  Hamilton  made  an  elabo- 
rate report  on  the  subject  of  manufactures,  which,  in  point  of 
clearness  and  force  of  argument,  has  probably  never  been 
surpassed  by  any  state  paper  on  this  subject.* 

*  Of  the  author  of  this  and  other  official  reports,  an  American  statesman, 

{Charles  J.  Ingersoll,  of  Pennsylvania,  in  an  address  before  the  American 
nstitute,  in  1835,]  speaks  thus  :  "  If  any  one  man  more  than  many  others 
Is  entitled  to  be  called  the  author  of  this  golden  age  of  navigation,  he  lived 
ind  died  in  this  city,  [New  York]  prematurely,  by  a  violent  death,  a  vic- 
tim to  soldierly  pride  ;  who,  when  hardly  of  age,  was  deemed  by  Washing- 
ton worthy  to  be  his  bosom  counselor;  when  little  more  than  thirty  years 
old,  composed  those  masterly  reports  on  the  domestic  industry,  the  com- 
merce, and  navigation  of  the  United  States,  which  have  ever  since  been 
the  precepts  of  all  his  successors  in  the  Treasury ;  who,  after  a  youth  of 
signalized  service  in  the  field,  and  early  manhood  in  the  cabinet,  where  he 
was  equally  eminent,  in  middle  life,  turned  to  take  the  lead  at  once  among 
powerful  competitors  in  a  learned  profession ;  who,  as  a  soldier,  a  states- 
man, a  lawyer,  and  an  orator,  had  no  superior  in  his  day, — Alexander 
Hamilton. 

"  It  may  be  affirmed,  that  industry,  as  encouraged  and  protected  by  his 
providence,  doubled  the  value  of  every  foot  of  ground  in  the  inhabited 
parts  of  the  United  States;  and  that,  if  his  services  could  have  been  paid 
as  a  private  agent,  instead  of  a  statesman,  a  small  per  coutage  taken  from 


26  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  II 

A  few  pages  here  may  be  profitably  occupied  with  extracts 
from  Mr.  Hamilton's  report.  Having  shown-"  that  manufac- 
turing industry  has  been  improperly  represented  as  unpro- 
ductive in  itself,  and  that  the  establishment  and  diffusion  of 
manufactures  have  the  effect  of  rendering  the  total  mass  of 
useful  and  productive  labor  in  a  community  greater  than  it 
otherwise  would  be,"  he  thus  proceeds  : 

"  It  is  now  proper  to  proceed  a  step  further,  and  to  enumer- 
ate the  principal  circumstances  from  which  it  may  be  inferred, 
that  establishments  not  only  occasion  a  positive  augmenta- 
tion of  the  produce  and  revenue  of  the  society,  but  that  they 
contribute  essentially  to  rendering  them  greater  than  they 
could  possibly  be  without  such  establishments. 

"  These  circumstances  are — 

"  I.  The  division  of  labor.  There  is  scarcely  anything  of 
greater  moment  in.  the  economy  of  a  nation,  than  the  proper 
division  of  labor.  The  separation  of  occupations  causes  each 
to  be  carried  to  a  much  greater  perfection  than  it  could  pos- 
sibly acquire  if  they  were  blended.  This  arises  principally 
from  three  causes  : 

"  1st.  The  greater  skill  and  dexterity  naturally  resulting 
from  a  constant  and  undivided  application  to  a  single  object. 

"2d.  The  economy  of  time,  by  avoiding  the  loss  of  it,  inci- 
dental to  a  frequent  transition  from  one  operation  to  another 
of  a  different  nature. 

"  3d.  An  extension  of  the  use  of  machinery.  A  man  occu- 
pied on  a  single  object  will  have  it  more  in  his  power,  and 
will  be  more  naturally  led  to  exert  his  imagination  in  devis- 
ing methods  to  facilitate  and  abridge  labor,  than  if  he  were 
perplexed  by  a  variety  of  independent  and  dissimilar  opera' 
tions.  Besides  this,  the  fabrication  of  machines,  in  numerous 
instances,  becoming  itself  a  distinct  trade,  the  artist  who 
follows  it,  has  all  the  advantages  which  have  been  enumer- 
ated for  improvement  in  his  particular  art,  and  in  both 
ways  the  invention  and  application  of  machinery  are  ex- 
tended. 

"  And  from  these  causes  united,  the  mere  separation  of  the 
cultivator  from  that  of  the  artificer,  has  the  effect  of  augment- 


what  he  added  to  every  man's  property,  would  have  made  him  the  richest 
man  in  the  world.  The  mantle  of  protection  he  left  on  navigation,  and 
recommended  for  manufuctr  irmly  aj> plied  to  their  infancy  by 

several  js,  after  that  second  and  effectual  era  of  American 

independence,  the  war  of  1 


1791-1  SECRETARY  HAMILTON'S  REPORT.  27 

ing  the  productive  powers  of  labor,  and  with  them  the  total 
mass  of  the  produce  or  revenue  of  a  country.  In  this  single 
view  of  the  subject,  therefore,  the  utility  of  artificers  or  manu- 
facturers towards  promoting  an  increase  of  productive  in- 
dustry, is  apparent. 

"  li.  The  next  circumstance  to  be  noticed  is  an  extension 
of  the  use  of  machinery,  a  point  which,  though  partly  anti- 
cipated, requires  to  be  placed  in  one  or  two  additional 
lights. 

"  The  employment  of  machinery  forms  an  item  of  import- 
ance in  the  general  mass  of  national  industry.  It  is  an 
artificial  force  brought  in  aid  of  the  natural  force  of  man  ; 
and,  to  all  the  purposes  of  labor,  is  an  increase  of  hands  ;  an 
accession  of  the  strength,  unencumbered,  too,  by  the  expense 
of  maintaining  the  laborer.  May  it  not,  therefore,  be  fairly  in- 
ferred, that  those  occupations  which  give  greater  scope  to 
the  use  of  this  auxiliary,  contribute  most  to  the  general  stock 
of  industrious  effort,  and,  in  consequence,  to  the  general  pro- 
duct of  industry  ? 

"  It  shall  be  taken  for  granted,  that  manufacturing  pursuits 
are  susceptible,  in  a  greater  degree,  of-  the  application  of 
machinery,  than  those  of  agriculture.  If  so,  all  the  difference 
is  lost  to  a  community,  which,  instead  of  manufacturing  for 
itself,  procures  the  fabrics  requisite  to  its  supply  from  other 
countries.  The  substitution  of  foreign  for  domestic  manufac- 
tures, is  a  transfer  to  foreign  nations  of  the  advantages 
accruing  from  the  advantages  of  machinery,  in  the  modes  in 
which  it  is  capable  of  being  employed,  with  most  utility,  and 
to  the  greatest  extent. 

"  The  cotton  mill  invented  in  England  within  the  last 
twent}T  years,  is  a  signal  illustration  of  the  proposition  which 
has  been  just  advanced.  In  consequence  of  it,  all  the  differ- 
ent processes  for  spinning  cotton  are  performed  by  means  of 
machines  which  are  put  in  motion  by  water,  and  attended 
chiefly  by  women  and  children,  and  by  a  smaller  number  of 
persons,  in  the  whole,  than  are  requisite  in  the  ordinary  mode 
of  spinning.  And  it  is  an  advantage  of  great  moment  that 
the  operations  of  this  mill  continue,  with  convenience,  during 
the  night  as  well  as  through  the  day.  The  prodigious  effect 
of  such  a  machine  is  easily  conceived.  To  this  invention  is 
to  be  attributed,  essentially,  the  immense  progress  which  has 
been  so  suddenly  made  in  Great  Britain  in  the  various  fabrics 
of  cotton. 

*'  III.  The  additional  employment  of  classes  of  the  com- 
munity not  engaged  in  the  particular  business 


28  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  Chap.  II 

"In  places  where  manufacturing  institutions  prevail,  be- 
sides the  persons  regularly  engaged  in  them,  they  afford 
occasional  and  extra  employment  to  industrious  individuals 
and  families,  who  are  willing  to  devote  the  leisure  resulting 
from  the  intermissions  of  their  ordinary  pursuits  to  collateral 
labors,  as  a  resource  for  multiplying  their  acquisitions  or 
their  enjoyments.  The  husbandman  himself  experiences  a 
new  source  of  profit  and  support  from  the  increased  industry 
of  his  wife  and  daughters,  invited  and  stimulated  by  the  de- 
mands of  the  neighboring  manufactories.  Another  advantage 
is  the  employment  of  persons  who  would  otherwise  be  idle, 
(and  iii  many  cases  a  burden  on  the  community,)  either  from 
the  bias  of  temper,  habit,  infirmity  of  body,  or  some  other 
cause,  indisposing  or  disqualifying  them  for  the  toils  of  the 
country. 

"  IV.  The  promoting  of  emigration  from  foreign  countries. 

"  If  it  be  true,  that  it  is  the  interest  of  the  United  States  to 
open  every  possible  avenue  to  emigration  from  abroad,  it 
affords  a  weighty  argument  for  the  encouragement  of  manu- 
factures, which  will  have  the  strongest  tendency  to  multiply 
the  inducements  to  it. 

"  Here  is  perceived  an  important  resource,  not  only  for  ex- 
tending the  population,  and  with  it  the  useful  and  the  produc- 
tive labor  of  the  country,  but  likewise  for  the  prosecution  of 
manufactures,  without  deducting  from  the  number  of  hands 
which  might  otherwise  be  drawn  to  tillage.  Many  whom 
manufacturing  views  would  induce  to  emigrate,  would  after- 
wards yield  to  the  temptations  which  the  particular  situation 
of  this  country  holds  out  to  agricultural  pursuits.  And  while 
agriculture  would  in  other  respects  derive  many  signal 
advantages  from  the  growth  of  manufactures,  it  is  a  problem 
whether  it  would  gain  or  lose  as  to  the  article  of  the  number 
of  persons  employed  in  carrying  it  on. 

"  V.  The  furnishing  of  greater  scope  for  the  diversity  of 
talents  and  dispositions  which  discriminate  men  from  each 
other. 

"  It  is  a  just  observation,  that  minds  of  the  strongest  and 
most  active  powers  for  their  proper  objects,  fall  below 
mediocrity,  and  labor  without  effect,  if  confined  tg  uncon- 
genial pursuits.  And  it  is  thence  to  be  inferred,  that  the 
results  of  human  exertion  may  be  immensely  increased  by 
diversifying  its  objects.  AYlien  all  the  different  kinds  of  in- 
dustry obtain  in  a  community,  each  individual  can  find  his 
dement,  and  can  call  into  activity  the  whole  vigor  of 


I791.J  SECRETARY  HAMILTON'S  REPORT.  29 

his  nature  :  and  the  community  is  benefited  by  the  services  of 
its  respective  members,  in  the  manner  in  which  each  can 
serve  it  with  most  effect. 

"  VI.  The  affording  of  a  more  ample  and  various  field  for 
enterprise. 

"  Every  new  scene  which  is  opened  to  the  busy  nature  of 
man,  to  arouse  and  exert  itself,  is  the  addition  of  a  new 
energy  to  the  general  stock  of  effort.  The  spirit  of  enter- 
prise, useful  and  prolific  as  it  is,  must  necessarily  be  con- 
tracted or  expanded  in  proportion  to  the  simplicity  or  variety 
of  occupations  and  productions  which  are  to  be  found  in  a 
society.  It  must  be  less  in  a  nation  of  mere  cultivators  than 
in  a  nation  of  cultivators  and  merchants  ;  less  in  a  nation  of 
cultivators  and  merchants  than  in  a  nation  of  cultivators, 
artificers,  and  merchants. 

"  VII.  The  creating,  in  some  instances,  a  new,  and  securing 
in  all,  a  more  certain  and  steady  demand  for  the  surplus  pro- 
duce of  the  soil. 

"  This  is  among  the  most  important  of  the  circumstances 
which  have  been  indicated.  It  is  a  principal  means  by  which 
the  establishment  of  manufactures  contributes  to  the  augmen- 
tation of  the  produce  or  revenue  of  a  country,  and  has  an  im- 
mediate and  direct  relation  to  the  prosperity  of  agriculture. 

"  It  is  evident  that  the  exertions  of  the  husbandman  will 
be  vigorous  or  feeble,  in  proportion  to  the  steadiness  or  fluc- 
tuation, adequateness  or  inadequateness,  of  the  markets  on 
which  he  must  depend  for  the  vent  of  the  surplus  which  may 
be  produced  by  his  labor  ;  and  that  such  surplus,  in  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  things,  will  be  greater  or  less  in  the  same 
proportion.  .For  the  purpose  of  this  vent,  a  domestic  market  is 
greatly  to  be  preferred  to  a  foreign  one ;  because  it  is,  in  tho 

nature  of  things,  far  more  to  be  relied  upon The  foreign 

demand  for  the  products  of  agricultural  countries  is  rather 
casual  and  occasional  than  certain  or  constant.  Injurious  in- 
terruptions of  the  demand  for  some  of  the  staple  commodities 
of  the  United  States  are  at  times  very  inconveniently  felt ; 
and  cases  not  unfrequently  occur,  in  which  markets  are  so 
confined  and  restricted  as  to  render  the  demand  very  unequal 
to  the  supply.  The  differences  of  seasons  in  the  countries 
which  are  the  consumers,  make  immense  differences  in  the 
produce  of  their  own  soils  in  different  years  ;  and,  conse- 
quently, in  the  degrees  of  their  necessity  for  foreign  supply. 
Plentiful  harvests  with  them,  especially  if  similar  ones  occur 
at  the  same  time  in  the  countries  which  are  the  furnishers, 
occasion,  of  course,  a  glut  in  the  markets  of  the  latter. 


30  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  FChap.  II 

"  Considering  how  fast  and  how  much  the  progress  of  new 
settlements  of  the  United  States  must  increase  the  surplus 
produce  of  the  soil,  and  weighing  seriously  the  tendency  of 
the  system  which  prevails  among  most  of  the  commercial  na- 
tions of  Europe  ;  there  appear  strong  reasons  to  regard  the 
foreign  demand  for  that  surplus  as  too  uncertain  a  reliance, 
and  to  desire  a  substitute  for  it  in  an  extensive  domestic 
market.  To  secure  such  a  market,  there  is  no  other  expedi- 
ent than  to  promote  manufacturing  establishments.  Manu- 
facturers, who  constitute  the  most  numerous  class,  after  the 
cultivators  of  land,  are,  for  that  reason,  the  principal  consum- 
ers of  the  surplus  of  their  labors. 

"  It  merits  particular  observation,  that  the  multiplication  of 
manufactories  not  only  furnishes  a  market  for  those  articles 
which  have  been  accustomed  to  be  produced  in  abundance  in 
a  country,  but  it  likewise  creates  a  demand  for  such  as  wera 
either  unknown  or  produced  in  inconsiderable  quantities. 
The  bowels  as  well  as  the  surface  of  the  earth,  are  ransacked 
for  articles  which  were  before  neglected.  Animals,  plants, 
and  minerals,  acquire  a  utility  and  a  value  which  were  before 
unexplored. 

"  The  foregoing  considerations  seem  sufficient  to  establish 
the  propositions,  that  it  is  the  Interest  of  nations  to  diversify 
the  industrious  pursuits  of  the  individuals  who  compose  them, 
and  that  the  establishment  of  manufactures  is  calculated  to 
increase  the  general  stock  of  useful  and  productive  labor." 

The  Secretary  next  notices  what  may  be  said  in  reference 
to  the  particular  situation  of  the  United  States,  against  the 
conclusions  which  appear  to  result  from  what  has  been  al- 
ready offered. 

"There  are  those  who  admit  that  a  country  which  posses- 
ses large  tracts  of  vacant  and  fertile  lands,  and  is  secluded 
from  foreign  commerce,  may  be  benefited  by  diverting  a  part 
of  its  population  from  tillage  to  manufactures  ;  but  who  deny 
that  the  same  is  true  of  a  country  which,  having  such  vacant 
and  fertile  lands,  has  at  the  same  time  ample  opportunity  of 
procuring  the  manufactures  which  it  needs,  on  good  terms, 
from  abroad.  And  though  it  should  be  true,  that,  in  settled 
countries,  diversified  industry  increases  the  productive  pow- 
ers of  labor,  and  augments  revenue  and  capital  ;  yet  it  does 
not  appear  to  be  of  so  solid  and  permanent  advantage  to  an 
uncultivated  and  unpeopled  country,  as  to  convert  its  wastes 
into  cultivated  and  inhabited  districts.  If  the  revenue,  in  the 
mean  time,  should  be  less,  the  capital  in  the  event  must  be 
greater." 


1791.]  SECRETARY  HAMILTON'S  REPORT.  3} 

The  Secretary's  answer  to  these  observations,  we  give  in 
a  condensed  form,  as  follows  : 

If  perfect  liberty  to  industry  and  commerce  were  the  pre- 
tailing  system  of  nations,  there  would  be  great  force  in  the 
arguments  which  dissuade  a  country  in  the. situation  of  the 
United  States  from  the  pursuit  of  manufactures.  If  one  na- 
tion could  supply  manufactured  articles  on  better  terms  than 
another,  that  other  might  be  indemnified  by  its  superior  ca- 
pacity to  furnish  the  produce  of  the  soil  ;  and  a  free  exchange 
might  be  mutually  beneficial.  But  the  system  mentioned  does 
not  characterize  the  general  policy  of  nations.  Consequently 
the  United  States  are  to  a  certain  extent  precluded  from 
foreign  commerce.  Countries  with  which  we  have  the  most 
extensive  intercourse,  throw  serious  obstructions  in  the  way 
of  the  principal  staples  of  the  United  States. 

In  such  a  position  of  things,  we  can  not  exchange  with  Eu- 
rope on  equal  terms  ;  and  the  want  of  reciprocity  would  com- 
pel us  to  confine  our  views  to  agriculture,  and  to  refrain  from 
manufactures.  A  constant  and  increasing  necessity  on  ou? 
part  for  the  commodities  of  Europe,  and  only  a  partial  and  oc- 
casional demand  for  our  own  in  return,  would  expose  us  to  a 
state  of  impoverishment,  compared  with  the  opulence  to  which 
onr  political  and  natural  advantages  authorize  us  to  aspire. 
Whether  other  nations  do  not,  by  their  policy,  lose  more  than 
they  gain,  they  must  judge  for  themselves  :  it  is  for  the 
United  States  to  consider  how  they  can  render  themselves 
least  dependent  on  the  combinations  of  foreign  policy.  If 
Europe  will  not  take  from  us  the  products  of  our  soil  upon 
favorable  terms,  the  natural  remedy  is  to  contract  as  fast  as 
possible  our  wants  of  hers. 

The  conversion  of  our  uncultivated  lands  is  a  point  of  great 
importance.  But  though  the  encouragement  of  manufactures 
should  somewhat  retard  this  object,  the  disadvantage  would 
be  more  than  counterbalanced  by  such  encouragement.  The 
interests  even  of  agriculture  may  be  advanced  more  by  hav- 
ing the  occupied  lands  under  good  cultivation,  than  by  hav- 
ing a  greater  quantity  occupied  under  inferior  cultivation. 
Manufactories  tend  to  promote  a  more  steady  and  vigorous 
cultivation  of  the  lands  occupied,  and  serve  to  increase  both 
the  capital  value  and  the  income  of  the  lands,  even  though 
they  should  abridge  the  number  of  acres  under  tillage. 

But  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  new  settlements  would 
be  retarded  by  the  extension  of  manufactures.  So  strong  is 
the  natural  desire  of  being  an  independent  proprietor  of  land, 


32  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap  II. 

and  so  easily  is  it  acquired  in  this  country,  that  but  a  small 
proportion  of  those  who  have  this  desire  would  be  diverted 
from  it  towards  manufactures.  And  it  is  probable,  as  already 
intimated,  that,  of  the  foreigners  drawn  hither  by  manufac- 
turing' views,  who  would  afterwards  abandon  them  for  agri- 
cultural, would  be  equal  to  those  of  our  own  citizens  who 
might  have  exchanged  agricultural  for  manufacturing  pur- 
suits. 

Another  objection  to  a  particular  encouragement  of  manu- 
factures in  the  United  States,  is,  that  industry,  if  left  to  itself, 
will  naturally  find  its  way  to  the  most  profitable  employment ; 
and  hence,  that  manufactures,  without  tho  aid  of  Government, 
will  grow  up  as  soon  and  as  fast  as  the  natural  state  of  things 
and  the  interest  of  the  community  may  require. 

To  this  it  is  replied,  in  substance,  that  the  fear  of  failure  in 
untried  enterprises,  the  difficulties  incident  to  first  attempts 
to  compete  with  those  who  have  attained  to  perfection  in  ths 
business  to  be  attempted,  and  the  bounties,  premiums,  and 
other  encouragements  with  which  foreign  nations  aid  the  ex- 
ertions of  their  own  citizens,  discourage  the  investment  of 
capital  in  manufactures.  Men  change  their  occupations  with 
reluctance  and  hesitation  ;  and  these  changes  would  be  likely 
to  be  too  tardy  for  the  interest  either  of  individuals  or  of  the 
community,  without  the  aid  of  Government. 

The  three  circumstances,  namely,  scarcity  of  hands,  dear- 
ness  of  labor,  and  want  of  capital,  which  are  urged  as  objec- 
tions to  the  pursuit  of  manufactures,  are  next  considered. 

The  two  first  of  these  circumstances,  the  Secretary  admits, 
operate  to  some  extent  against  the  manufacturing  enterprise 
in  the  United  States  ;  but  they  are  not  sufficient  to  prevent 
its  advantageous  prosecution.  Some  districts  are  already 
pretty  fully  peopled  ;  and,  having  fewer  attractions  to  agri- 
culture than  some  other  parts  of  the  Union,  they  exhibit  a 
stronger  tendency  towards  other  kinds  of  industry.  But  the 
effect  of  a  scarcity  of  hands  is  materially  diminished  by  the 
employment  of  women  and  children,  the  use  of  improved  ma- 
chinery, and  the  attraction  of  foreign  emigrants.  The  objec- 
tion to  the  success  of  manufactures,  deduced  from  the  scarcity 
of  hands,  is  alike  applicable  to  trade  and  navigation,  and  yet 
those  do  not  appear  to  suffer  any  impediment  from  that  cause. 

The  dearness  of  labor  has  relation,  principally,  to  two  cir- 
cumstances ;  the  scarcity  of  hands,  and  the*  greatness  of 
pro' 

The  former  of  these,  the  scarcity  of  hands  which  has  just 


1791.]  SECRETARY  HAMILTON'S  REPORT.  33 

been  discussed,  is  farther  considered.  The  effect  of  the  dis- 
parity, in  this  respect,  between  Europe  and  this  country,  is 
diminished  in  proportion  to  the  use  which  can  be  made  of 
machinery.  Machines  can  be  prepared  here  on  nearly  as  fa- 
vorable terms  as  in  Europe.  So  far  as  they  depend  on  water, 
superiority  of  advantages  may  be  claimed,  from  the  variety 
and  cheapness  of  situations  adapted  to  mill  seats  with  which 
many  parts  of  the  United  States  abound. 

The  clearness  of  labor,  so  far  as  it  is  a  consequence  of  the 
greatness  of  profits,  in  any  branch  of  business,  is  no  obstacle 
to  success.  Undertakers  of  manufactures  can  at  this  time  af- 
ford to  pay  higher  wages  than  are  paid  in  Europe.  As  to  the 
cost  of  materials  and  of  grounds  and  buildings  ;  the  commis- 
sions of  agents  to  purchase  the  fabrics  where  they  are  made  ; 
the  expense  of  transportation  to  the  United  States,  including 
insurance  and  other  incidental  charges  ;  the  taxes  or  duties, 
if  any,  and  fees  of  office  which  are  paid  on  their  exportation  ; 
the  taxes  or  duties  and  fees  of  office  paid  on  their  importa- 
tion : — all  these  affect  the  price  of  the  foreign  fabric,  and  go 
far  to  counterbalance  the  advantage  of  the  greater  cheapness 
of  labor. 

Lastly,  the  want  of  capital.  This  is  the  most  indefinite  of 
the  objections  urged  against  the  prosecution  of  manufactures 
in  the  United  States.  The  real  extent  of  the  moneyed  capital 
of  a  country,  and  the  proportion  which  it  bears  to  the  objects 
which  invite  the  employment  of  capital,  are  not  easily  deter- 
mined. Why  may  not  the  some  objection — the  want  of  capi- 
tal— be  made  to  external  commerce  as  to  manufactures  ?  It 
is  believed  there  will  be  found,  in  one  way  or  another,  a  suffi- 
cient fund  for  the  successful  prosecution  of  any  species  of  in- 
dustry which  is  likely  to  prove  truly  beneficial. 

The  introduction  of  banks  has  a  powerful  tendency  to  ex- 
tend the  active  capital  of  a  country.  Their  utility  is  multi- 
ptying  them  in  the  United  States.  If  administered  with  pru- 
dence, they  will  add  new  energies  to  all  pecuniary  operations. 

The  aid  of  foreign  capital,  too,  may  be  safely  calculated 
upon.  This  aid  has  long  been  experienced  in  our  external 
commerce,  and  has  begun  to  be  felt  in  various  modes.  In  a 
few  instances,  it  has  already  extended  even  to  our  manufac- 
tures. Some  parts  of  Europe  have  more  capital  than  can  be 
profitably  employed  at  home  ;  and  large  loans  are  made  to 
foreign  States.  Various  objects  in  this  country  strongly  in- 
vite the  transfer  of  foreign  capital. 

Some  persons  may  look  \vith  a  jealous  eye  on  the  introduo 

2  * 


34  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  II. 

tion  of  foreign  capital,  as  if  it  would  deprive  our  citizens  of 
the  profits  of  our  industry  ;  but  this  is  an  unreasonable  jeal- 
ousy. Instead  of  being  viewed  as  a  rival,  it  ought  to  be  con- 
sidered as  a  most  valuable  auxiliary,  conducing  to  put  in 
motion  a  greater  quantity  of  productive  labor,  and  -a  greater 
portion  of  useful  enterprise.  In  a  country  like  ours,  with  vast 
resources  yet  to  be  unfolded,  foreign  capital  is  a  precious  ac- 
quisition. When  once  introduced,  and  for  whatever  purpose, 
it  may  be  directed  to  any  object :  and  to  detain  it  among  us, 
no  expedient  is  so  effectual  as  to  enlarge  the  sphere  within 
which  it  may  be  usefully  employed.  Though  introduced 
merely  with  views  to  speculations  in  the  funds,  it  may  after- 
wards be  made  to  subserve  the  interests  of  agriculture,  com- 
merce, and  manufactures. 

But  the  attraction  of  foreign  capital  may  be  expected  for 
the  direct  purpose  of  manufactures  ;  as  enterprises  for  im- 
proving the  public  communications,  by  cutting  canals,  open- 
ing the  obstructions  in  rivers,  and  erecting  bridges,  have  re- 
ceived material  aid  from  the  same  source.  Among  the  pow- 
erful inducements  to  the  manufacturing  capitalist  of  Europe, 
to  transfer  himself  and  his  capital  to  the  United  States,  is  the 
reflection,  that  the  progressive  population  and  improvement 
of  this  country  insure  a  continually  increasing  domestic  de- 
mand for  the  fabrics  which  he  shall  produce. 

But  there  is  a  species  of  capital  actually  existing  within 
the  United  States,  which  relieves  from  all  anxiety  on  the 
score  of  want  of  capital :  this  is  the  Funded  Debt.  Public 
funds  answer  the  purpose  of  capital  from  the  estimation  in 
which  they  are  held  by  moiled  men,  and  consequently  from 
the  ease  and  dispatch  with  which  they  can  be  turned  into 
money.  This  causes,  in  many  instances,  a  transfer  of  stock 
to  be  equivalent  to  a  payment  in  coin.  Hence,  in  a  sound 
and  settled  state  of  the  public  funds,  a  man  possessed  of  a 
sum  in  them,  can  embrace  any  scheme  of  business  with  as 
much  confidence  as  if  he  had  an  equal  sum  in  coin. 

It  is  objected  to  the  encouragement  of  manufactures,  that 
it  tends  to  give  a  monopoly  of  advantages  to  particular 
classes  of  the  community  at  the  expense  of  others,  who  might 
supply  themselves  with  manufactured  articles  on  better  terms 
from  abroad  ;  and  who,  it  is  alleged,  are  compelled  to  pay  an 
enhanced  price  for  what  tin  y  want.  Measures  which  serve 

;  of  foreign  articles,  may  occa- 
sion an  enhancement  «f'  prices.  Such  is  not  uniformly  the  ef- 
fect. The  establishment  of  a  domestic  manufacture  has  often 


1791.]'  SECRETARY  HAMILTON'S  REPORT.  35 

been  followed  immediately  by  a  reduction  of  price.  But 
though  the  immediate  and  certain  effect  should  be  an  in- 
crease of  price,  it  is  universally  /true,  that  tire  contrary  is  the 
ultimate  effect  with  every  successful  manufacture.  When  a 
domestic  'manufacture,  has  attained  to  perfection,  and  has  engaged  in 
the  prosecution  cf  it  a  competent  number  of  persons,  it  invariably  be- 
comes cheaper.  Being1  free  from  the  heavy  charges  which  at- 
tend the  importation  of  foreign  commodities,  it  can  be  af- 
forded, and  accordingly  seldom  or  never  fails  to  be  sold 
cheaper,  in  process  of  time,  than  was  the  foreign  article  for 
which  it  is  a  substitute.  The  internal  competition  which  takes 
place,  soon  does  away  every  thing  like  monopoly,  and  by  de- 
grees reduces  the  price  of  the  article  to  the  minimum  of  a 
reasonable  profit  on  the  capital  employed.  This  accords  with 
the  reason  of  the  thing  and  with  experience.  Whence  it  fol- 
lows, that  it  is  the  interest  of  the  community,  with  a  view  to 
eventual  and  permanent  economy,  to  encourage  the  growth 
of  manufactures.  In  a  national  view,  a  temporary  enhance- 
ment of  price  must  always  be  well  compensated  by  a  perma- 
nent reduction  of  it. 

This  eventual  diminution  of  the  prices  of  manufactured  ar- 
ticles, which  is  the  result  of  internal  manufacturing  establish- 
ments, has  a  direct  and  important  tendency  to  benefit  agri- 
culture. It  enables  the  farmer  to  procure  with  a  smaller 
quantity  of  his  labor  the  manufactured  product  of  which  he 
stands  in  need,  and  consequently  increases  the  value  of  his 
income  and  property. 

The  Secretary  proceeds  to  strengthen  the  considerations 
which  have  been  presented  in  favor  of  the  protective  policy. 

The  trade  of  a  country  which  is  both  manufacturing  and 
agricultural,  will  be  more  lucrative  and  prosperous  than  that 
of  a  country  which  is  merely  agricultural.  While  the  neces- 
sities of  exclusively  agricultural  nations  for  the  fabrics  of 
manufacturing  States,  are  constant  and  regular,  the  wants  of 
the  latter  for  the  products  of  the  former,  are  liable  to  very 
considerable  fluctuations  and  interruptions  ;  owing  to  the 
great  inequalities  resulting  from  difference  of  seasons,  as  has 
been  elsewhere  remarked,  and  to  other  causes.  This  uni- 
formity of  demand  on  the  one  side,  and  unsteadiness  of  it  on 
the  other,  causes  the  course  of  the  exchange  of  commodities 
between  the  parties  to  turn  out  to  the  disadvantage  of  the 
merely  agricultural  nation.  Peculiarity  of  situation,  a  cli- 
mate and  soil  adapted  to  the  production  of  peculiar  commodi- 
ties, may  sometimes  contradict  the  rule  ;  but  it  is  believed 
that  it  will  be  found  in  the  main  a  just  one. 


36  THE  PROTKCTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IL 

States  that  manufacture  as  well  as  cultivate,  having  a  more 
diversified  market,  present  more  nurnerous  attractions  to 
foreign  customers,  and  afford  greater  scope  to  mercantile 
enterprise.  The  greatest  resort  will  ever  be  to  those  marts 
where  commodities,  while  equally  abundant,  are  most  vari- 
ous. And  it  is  a  position  not  less  clear,  that  the  field  of  en- 
terprise must  be  enlarged  to  the  merchants  of  a  country,  in 
proportion  to  the  variety  as  well  as  the  abundance  of  com- 
modities which  they  find  at  home  for  exportation  to  foreign 
markets. 

Again,  the  nation  which  can  bring  to  market  but  few  arti- 
cles, is  likely  to  be  more  quickly  and  sensibly  affected  by  the 
stagnations  of  demand  for  certain  articles  which,  at  some 
time  or  other,  interfere  more  or  less  with  the  sale  of  all,  than 
a  nation  which  is  always  possessed  of  a  great  variety  of  com- 
modities. 

The  balance  of  trade,  too,  is  more  likely  to  be  in  favor  of 
countries  in  which  manufactures,  founded  upon  a  thriving 
agriculture,  flourish,  than  of  those  which  arc  confined  wholly, 
or  almost  wholly,  to  agriculture,  and  consequently,  are  likely 
to  possess  more  pecuniary  wealth,  or  money. 

Not  only  the  wealth,  but  the  independence  and  security  of 
a  country  appear  to  be  materially  connected  with  the  pros- 
perity of  manufactures.  The  extreme  embarrassments  of  the 
United  States,  during  the  war,  from  an  incapacity  of  supply- 
ing themselves,  are  still  matter  of  keen  recollection. 

Our  distance  from  Europe,  the  great  fountain  of  manufac- 
tured supply,  subjects  us,  in  the  existing  state  of  things,  to 
inconvenience  and  loss. 

The  opinion  is  not  uncommon,  that  though  the  promoting 
of  manufactures  may  be  the  interest  of  a  part  of  the  Union, 
it  is  contrary  to  that  of  another  part.  The  Northern  and 
Southern  regions  are  sometimes  represented  as  having 
adverse  interests  in  this  respect.  Those  are  called  manufac- 
turing, these  agricultural  States  ;  and  a  species  of  opposition 
is  imagined  to  subsist  between  the  manufacturing  arid  agri- 
cultural interests.  This  is  the  common  error  of  the  early 
periods  of  every  country  ;  but  experience  gradually  dissipates 
it.  It  is  a  maxim  well  established  by  experience,  that  the 
aggregate  prosperity  of  manufactures,  and  the  aggregate 
prosperity  of  .Mgrimlhire,  are  intimately  connected. 

Ideas  of  a  contrariety  of  interests  between  the  Northern 
and  Southern  regions  of  tho  Union,  are,  in  the  main,  as  un- 
founded as  they  are  mischievous.  Mutual  wants  canst  it  ute  one 


1791.1  SECRETARY  HAMILTON'S  REPORT.  37 

of  the  strongest  links  of  political  conned  ion  ;  and  the  extent  of 
these  bears  a  natural  proportion  to  the  diversity  in  the  means 
of  mutual  supply. 

"  If  the  Northern  and  Middle  States,"  continues  the  Secre- 
tary, "  should  be  the  principal  scenes  of  such  establishments, 
they  would  immediately  benefit  the  more  Southern,  by  creat- 
ing a  demand  for  productions,  some  of  which  they  have  in 
common  with  the  other  States,  and  others  of  which  are  either 
peculiar  to  them,  or  more  abundant,  or  of  better  quality,  than 
elsewhere.  These  productions,  principally,  are  timber,  flax, 
hemp,  cotton,  wool,  raw  silk,  indigo,  iron,  lead,  furs,  hides, 
skins,  and  coals.  Of  these  articles,  cotton  and  indigo  are 
peculiar  to  the  Southern  States,  as  are  hitherto  lead  and  coal. 
Flax  and  hemp  are,  or  may  be  raised  in  greater  abundance 
there  than  in  the  more  Northern  States  ;  and  the  wool  of 
Virginia  is  said  to  be  of  better  quality  than  that  of  any  other 
State — a  circumstance  rendered  the  more  probable  by  the 
reflection,  that  Virginia  embraces  the  same  latitudes  with 
the  finest  wool  countries  of  Europe.  The  climate  of  the  South 
is  also  better  adapted  to  the  production  of  silk.  The  exten- 
sive cultivation  of  cotton  can  perhaps  hardly  be  expected, 
but  from  the  previous  establishment  of  domestic  manufacto- 
ries of  the  article  ;  and  the  surest  encouragement  and  vent 
for  the  others,  would  result  from  similar  establishments  with 
regard  to  them. 

"  If,  then,  it  satisfactorily  appeals,  that  it  is  the  interest 
of  the  United  States,  generally,  to  encourage  manufactures, 
it  merits  particular  attention,  that  there  are  circumstances 
which  render  the  present  a  critical  moment  for  entering  with* 
zeal  upon  the  important  business.  The  effort  can  not  fail  to 
be  materially  seconded  by  a  considerable  and  incr<  asing  in- 
flux of  money,  in  consequence  of  foreign  speculations  in  the 
funds,  and  by  the  disorders  which  exist  in  different  parts  of 
Europe." 

In  order  to  a  better  judgment  of  the  means  proper  to  be 
resorted  to  by  the  United  States,  it  will  be*of  use  to  advert 
to  those  which  have  been  employed  with  success  in  other 
countries.  Among  the  principal  of  which,  the  Secretary 
mentions  the  following  : 

I.  Protecting  duties,  or  duties   on   those  foreign   articles 
which  are  the  rivals  of  the  domestic  ones  intended  to  be  en- 
couraged. 

II.  Prohibitions  of  rival   articles,  or  duties  equivalent  to 
prohibitions. 


33  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  II 

III.  Prohibitions  of  the  exportation  of  the  material  of  man- 
ufactures. 

IV.  Pecuniary  bounties. 

V.  Premiums.     These  differ  from  bounties.    Bounties  are 
applicable  to  the  whole  quantity  of  an  article  produced,  or 
manufactured,  or  exported,  and  involve  a  correspondent  ex- 
pense.    Premiums   serve  to  reward  some   particular  excel- 
lence or  superiority,  some  extraordinary  exertion  or  skill, 
and  are  dispensed  only  in  a  small  number  of  cases. 

VI.  The  exemption  of  the  materials  of  manufactures  from 
duty  ;  the  policy  of  which,  as  a  general  rule,  particularly  in 
reference  to  new  establishments,  is  obvious. 


1797.1  MODIFICATIONS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  89 


CHAPTER    III. 

Modifications  of  the  Tariff.     Action  of  Congress  in  1809-1810.     Secretary  Galla- 
tin's  Report.     Double  duties  imposed. 

FOR  several  years,  no  essential  change  was  made  in  the 
tariff  of  duties  on  imports.  In  1797  was  passed-"  An  act  for 
raising'  a  further  sum  of  money,  by  additional  duties  on  cer- 
tain articles  imported,  and  for  other  purposes."  By  this  act, 
the  duty  on  brown  sugar  was  raised  one-half  of  a  cent  a 
pound.  On  all  bohea  tea,  2  cents  a  pound  ;  and  on  molasses, 
1  cent  a  gallon,  additional  duty  was  laid  ;  and  on  velvets, 
muslins,  and  other  cotton  goods  not  printed  or  colored,  an 
addition  of  2J  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

In  1800,  additional  duties  were  laid  :  On  brown  sugar,  of 
one-half  of  a  cent  a  pound  ;  sugar  candy  2 \  cents  a  pound  ; 
molasses,  1  cent  a  gallon.  On  all  goods  paying  a  duty  of  10 
per  cent.,  2J  per  cent,  additional.  The  existing  duties  on 
wines  were  abolished  ;  and  in  lieu  thereof,  there  was  laid,  on 
the  best  kinds  of  Madeira,  58  cents  a  gallon  ;  and  on  other 
wines  the  duties  were  graduated  clown  to  20  <)ents  a  gallon. 
To  the  rates  of  duties  above  specified,  10  per  cent,  was  to  be 
added  in  respect  to  such  goods  of  these  kinds  as  should  be 
imported  in  foreign  vessel^.  On  account  of  the  additional 
duties  on  brown  sugar,  some  addition  was  made  to  the  draw- 
back allowed  by  law  on  sugar  refined  in  the  United  States, 
and  exported  ;  also  on  spirits  distilled  from  molasses,  and 
exported. 

The  object  of  these  acts,  it  is  presumed,  was  rather  to  in- 
crease the  revenue,  than  for  the  encouragement  of  domestic 
industry. 

In  1804,  an  act  was  passed  "  for  imposing  more  specific 
duties  en  the  importation  of  certain  articles  ;"  with  more 
special  reference  to  the  encouragement  of  the  manufacture  of 
them.  During  the  two  preceding  sessions,  petitions  had 
been  presented  from  the  manufacturers  of  numerous  articles  ; 
as,  gunpowder,  hats,  printing  types,  brushes  ;  from  manu- 
facturers of  starch,  paper,  and  umbrellas  ;  and  from  calico 
printers,  cordwainers,  shoemakers,  printers,  combmakcrs, 
gunsmiths,  and  cork-cutters.  Reports  on  the  same  had  been 
made  by  the  Committee  of  Commerce  and  Manufactures  ;  But 


40  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  III. 

no  decisive  action  had  been  taken  upon  them.  A  number  of 
similar  memorials  were  again  presented  to  Congress  for  en- 
couragement to  these  branches  of  manufacture  ;  and  the 
whole  were  now  reported  on  by  the  Committee  above  men- 
tioned. 

Tiie  modes,  mentioned  by  the  Committee,  of  favoring  do- 
mestic manufactures  by  governmental  aid,  are,  1.  By  exempt- 
ing imported  raw  materials  from  impost  duties.  2.  By  lay- 
ing higher  or  prohibiting  duties  on  manufactured  articles 
imported.  3.  By  withholding  drawback  from  articles  of 
foreign  manufacture  exported  again.  4.  By  allowing  draw- 
back of  duties  paid  on  domestic  manufactures  equal  to  what 
was  paid  on  the  raw  materials  on  their  importation.  This 
had  been  allowed  on  the  exportation  of  sugar  refined  from 
foreign  materials,  ar.d  on  rum  distilled  from  foreign  molasses  ; 
though  under  the  law  then  existing,  neither  was  entitled  to 
the  drawback.  5.  By  direct  bounties.  This  mode  of  en- 
couragement had  been  thought  to  have  been  employed  par- 
tially in  the  curing-  and  exporting  of  codfish,  and  could  be 
extended  to  other  branches  of  business,  if  sound  policy  re- 
quired it. 

It  ought  to  be  considered,  say  the  Committee,  that  there  is 
great  scope  for  agriculture,  tillage,  and  rural  employment  in 
the  United  States.  Agriculture  is  the  great  occupation  which 
sets  in  motion  all  kinds  of  manufactures.  It  furnishes  both 
the  raw  materials  and  the  articles  of  subsistence  to  those  en- 
pigird  in  manufacturing  employments.  This  being  the  fact, 
the  question  arises,  whether  we  shall  furnish  raw  materials 
and  food  to  manufacturers  in  our  own  country,  or  in  foreign 
lands.  Political  economists  will  instantly  see,  that  tho  good 
of  the  revenue  and  the  happiness  of  the  people,  are  best  pro- 
moted by  offering  a  part  of  our  tmwrought  materials  and  of 
our  surplus  provisions  to  domestic  manufacturers,  and  to  ex- 
port the  other  part  of  what  we  can  spare,  in  exchange  for  the 
wrought  productions  of  foreign  manufactories. 

The  Committee  reported  a  list  of  articles  to  be  admitted 
free  of  duty,  and  of  those  the  duties  on  which  ought  to  bo 
raised,  specifying  the  duties  to  be  paid  on  the  articles  re- 
spectively ;  and  :i  b'il  was  reported. 

Mr.  Iluger,  of  S.  C.,  moved  its  postponement  to  the  first 
Monday  •  '"-r. 

Mr.  J.  Cl:iy,  of  l'<  nn..  o;.s"rvo/l  that  a  postponement  would 
be  virtually  a  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  L.  Mitchell,  of  N.  Y.,  chairman  of  the  Commit 


1737.]  MODIFICATIONS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  41 

tee  on  Commerce  and  Manufactures,  who  reported  on  the 
subject,  and  Mr.  Blackledge,  of  N.  C.,  advocated  the  bill. 

Mr.  Roger  Griswold,  of  Conn.,  opposed  it,  principally  on 
the  ground  that  it  increased  the  rate  of  duties. 

Mr.  J.  Clay  replied  ;  and  allowed  that  the  duties  imposed 
by  the  bill  would  produce  more  revenue  than  that  heretofore 
received,  but  contended  that  this  would  arise  from  the  fraud- 
ulent practice  heretofore  in  use  of  making  out  invoices  of 
articles  subject  at  present  to  ad  valorem  duties.  In  removing 
this  evil,  the  necessary  effect  would  be  an  increase  of  revenue, 
not  exceeding,  however,  the  probable  receipt  in  case  the  in- 
voices were  fairly  made  out. 

Mr.  linger  contended  that  the  operation  of  the  bill  would 
be  to  promote  the  manufactures  of  the  Eastern  and  Middle 
State,  to  the  great  detriment  of  the  Southern  States.  Prin- 
cipally, though  not  entirely,  he  declared  himself  hostile  to 
the  bill. 

The  motion  to  postpone  was  lost  ;  yeas,  40  ;  nays,  68. 

On  the  final  passage  of  the  bili,  the  vote  -was,  yeas,  65  ; 
nays,  41,  as  follows  : 

New  Hampshire  :  Nays,  3.  Massachusetts  :  Yeas  7 ;  nays,  7.  Rhode 
Island :  Yeas,  2.  Connecticut :  Nays,  5.  Vermont :  Yeas.  2 ;  nays,  2. 
New  York :  Yeas,  8  ;  nays,  SL  New  Jersey  :  Yeas,  2.  Pennsylvania  : 
Yeas,  12;  nay,  1.  Maryland:  Yeas,  6;  nays,  2.  Virginia:  Yeas,  9; 
nays,  7.  North  Carolina:  Yeas,  5;  nays,  3.  South  Carolina:  Nays,  5. 
Georgia  :  Yea,  1 ;  nay,  1.  Kentucky:  Yeas,  4.  Tennessee:  Yeas,  2;  nay, 
1.  Ohio :  Yeas,  2. 

It  is  worthy  of  note,  that  most  of  the  duties  imposed  by  this 
act,  like  those  under  the  other  earlier  tariff  acts,  were  specific 
duties,  which  were  then,  as  they  have  since  been,  considered 
by  protectionists  as  preferable  to  ad  valorem  duties.  They  can 
not  be  evaded,  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  therefore  afford  surer 
protection  both  to  the  manufacturer  and  to  the  revenue. 

The  act  provides  as  follows  :  To  the  articles  exempted 
from  duty,  are  added,  rags,  bristles,  regulus  of  antimony, 
unwrought  clay,  unwrought  burr  stones,  and  the  bark  of  the 
cork  tree. 

Upon  the  following  articles  duties  were  laid  : 
Fish,  foreign  caught,  dried,  50  cents  per  quintal. 

"      foreign  caught,  pickled — salmon,  100  cents  per  barrel. 

"      mackerel,  60  cents  ;    all  other  pickled,  40cts.  "        " 
Cordage,  tintarred,  2J  cents  per  pound. 

Cables,  tarred  cordage,  white  and  red  lead,  2  cents  per  pound, 
Almonds,  currants,  prunes,  plums,  and  figs,  2 
Kaisins,  in  jars  and  boxes,  and  unsealed,  2 


42  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  Ill 

Raisins,  all  other  kinds,  1£  cents  per  pound. 

Tallow,  yellow  ocher  in  oil,  anchors,  sheet  iron,  1J  cents  per 

pound. 
Spanish  brown,  dry,  yellow  ocher,  slit  and  hoop  iron,  1  cent 

per  pound. 

Starch,  glue,  and  seines,  4  cents  per  pound. 
Chinese  cassia  and  gunpowder,  4  cents  per  pound. 
Cinnamon  and  cloves,  20  cents  per  pound. 
Nutmegs,  50  cents,  mace,  $1,25  per  pound. 
Black  glass  bottles,  60  cents  per  gross. 
Window  glass  as  follows  :  All  not  above  8  inches  by  10, 

$1,60  per  100  square  feet  ;  not  above   10  inches  by  12, 

$1,75  ;  and  all  above,  $2,25  per  100  square  feet. 
Cigars,  $2  per  thousand. 
Shoes,  kid  and  morocco,  15  cents  a  pair. 
Lime,  foreign,  50  cents  per  cask  containing  60  gallons. 
Wine,  Sicily,  30  cents  per  gallon. 

If  imported  in  foreign  vessels,  10  per  cent,  was  to  be  add- 
ed to  the  above. 

At  the  1st  session  of  the  llth  Congress,  begun  on  the  22d 
of  May,  1809,  President  Madison  called  the  attention  of  Con- 
gress to  the  subject  of  manufactures,  in  the  following  para- 
graph : 

"  The  revision  of  our  commercial  laws,  proper  to  adapt 
them  to  the  arrangement  which  has  taken  place  with  Great 
Britain,  will  doubtless  engage  the  early  attention  of  Congress. 
It  will  be  worthy,  at  the  same  time,  of  their  just  and  provi- 
dent care,  to  make  such  further  alterations  in  the  laws  as 
will  more  especially  protect  and  foster  the  several  brandies  of 
manufacture,  which  have  been  recently  instituted  or  extended 
by  the  laudable  exertions  of  our  citizens." 

Mr.  Bacon,  of  Massachusetts,  on  the  31st  of  May,  moved 
that  the  House  come  to  the  following  resolution  : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  directed 
to  prepare  and  report  to  this  House,  at  their  next  session,  a 
plan  for  the  application  of  such  means  as  are  within  the 
power  of  Congress,  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  and  foster- 
ing the  manufactures  of  the  United  States,  together  with  a 
statement  of  the  several  manufacturing  establishments  which 
have  been  commenced,  the  progress  which  have  been  made 
in  them,  and  the  success  with  which  they  has  been  attend- 
ed ;  and  such  other  infonnation  as,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Secret  1  !•(•  u.:it«'.  i;*l  in  exhibiting  a  general  view  of 

the  manufactures  of  the  United  States." 


1797.]  MODIFICATIONS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  43 

On  a  motion  to  print  the  resolution, 

Mr.  Lyon,  of  Kentucky,  opposed  the  printing  of  it.  ITo 
said  something  should  be  done  at  this  session  for  the  benefit 
of  the  manufacturers.  He  would  not  postpone  a  consideration 
of  the  subject  for  fear  of  giving  ofterise  to  the  British  Gov- 
ernment by  manufacturing  for  ourselves.  He  would  pro- 
claim to  the  world  our  intention  to  encourage  manufactures. 

Mr.  Bacon  concurred  heartily  in  the  patriotic  views  of  the 
gentleman  from  Kentucky  in  encouraging  manufactures.  lie 
had  no  idea,  by  this  motion,  of  interfering  with  any  particu- 
lar measure  which  the  gentleman  wished  to  adopt  in  relation 
to  manufactures  ;  lie  merely  looked  forward  to  some  practi- 
cal system  for  the  encouragement  of  manufactures. 

It  was  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Sundry  memorials  of  the  manufacturers  of  hats  were  pre- 
sented, and  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Commerce  and 
Manufactures. 

Mr.  Lyon,  on  the  1st  of  June,  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tion : 

11  Resolved,  That,  for  the  protection  of  those  who  have  com- 
menced, and  for  the  encouragement  of  those  who  may  be  dis- 
posed to  set  on  foot,  manufactures,  within  the  United  States, 
of  articles  hereafter  enumerated,  as  well  as  for  the  encourage- 
ment of  the  cultivation  of  the  productions  necessary  for  such 
manufactures,  provision  ought  forthwith  to  be  made  by  law 
to  subject  to  additional  duties  on  their  importation  into  the 
United  States,  all 'articles  of  which  leather  is  the  material  of 
chief  value  ;  hemp  and  cotton  and  all  articles  of  which  they 
or  either  of  them  are  the  material  of  chief  value  ;  woolen 
cloths  whose  invoice  prices  shall  exceed  six  shillings  sterling 
per  square  yard  ;  woolen  hosiery,  window  glass,  silver  and 
plated  wares,  paper  of  every  description,  nails,  spikes  and 
tacks,  hats,  clothing  ready  made,  millinery  of  all  kinds,  beer, 
ale,  and  porter." 

Mr.  Milnor,  of  Pennsylvania,  observed  that  this  resolution 
contemplated  a  duty  on  what  was  not  at  present,  and  proba- 
bly could  not  be  manufactured  in  this  country.  The  gentle- 
man contemplated  a  duty  on  all  cloths  above  six  shillings 
sterling  a  square  yard.  The  coarser  cloths  were  made  to  a 
great  extent  in  domestic  circles  ;  but  we  could  not  get  into 
the  manufacture  of  fine  cloths.  There  were  not  materials  for 
it.  He  was  happy  to  have  seen  a  disposition  to  improve  the 
breed  of  sheep  ;  but  at  this  time  the  country  was  not  compe- 
tent to  the  manufacture  of  these  articles.  The  price  of  wool 


44  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IIL 

in  England,  and  the  situation  of  their  manufacturers,  had 
i  aised  the  price  of  their  fine  cloths  so  much  as  nearly  to  stop 
their  importation  into  this  country,  without  the  impediment 
of  a  duty.  He  had  no  objection  to  seeing  manufactures 
encouraged  by  gentlemen's  wearing  domestic  fabrics,  even  at 
a  greater  expense,  in  preference  to  any  other  ;  but  he  would 
not  encourage  them  by  law.  Manufactures  had  already  been 
commenced  in  the  Eastern  States  before  the  embargo,  and 
had  grown  to  a  considerable  extent.  A  great  number  of 
hands  were  employed  in  the  business  at  low  wages,  the 
emoluments  going  into  the  pockets  of  a  few  individuals,  who 
were*  already  enriched  by  them  ;  and  the  laying  of  an  addi- 
tional duty  would  only  throw  more  money  into  their  pockets. 
He  approved  of  the  plan  of  Mr.  Bacon  for  calling  for  a  report 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  the  subject  ;  and  moved 
that  the  resolution  be  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Commerce 
and  Manufactures. 

Mr.  Newton,  of  Virginia,  Chairman  of  that  Committee,  said 
they  already  had  this  subject  under  consideration,  by  order 
of  the  House. 

Mr.  Lyon  had  no  objection  to  the  reference  of  the  resolu- 
tion to  the  Committee  as  an  instruction  ;  for  that  was  the 
course  which  he  had  designed  to  give  it.  He  said  he  was 
once  himself  a  great  manufacturer  of  iron,  but  had  failed  of 
success  from  the  want  of  encouragement.  Fine  woolens,  he 
said,  were  not  necessary  in  this  country  ;  there  were  coats 
in  the  House  that  cost  less  than  six  shillings  the  square 
yard  ;  and  he  questioned  whether  that  which  he  wore  cost 
so  much.  Merchants  of  the  great  cities  had  already  objected 
to  these  duties  because  they  lessened  the  importation  of 
goods,  and  diminished  the  profits  of  the  merchants.  If  Con- 
gress were  to  wait  till  they  consented  to  this  measure,  it 
would  never  be  done. 

Mr.  Macon,  of  North  Carolina,  said,  in  the  country  in  which 
he  lived,  the  people  wanted  no  protecting  duties  to  encourage 
domestic  manufactures  ;  the  only  way  to  encourage  them 
was  for  great  people — for  instance,  the  President  and  Heads 
of  Departments— to  make  them  fashionable.  Laying  a  tax 
on  foreign  goods  would  but  tax  the  many  for  the  benefit  of 
the  few,  He  had  no  idea  of  laying  taxes  to  induce  men  to 
work  in  iron,  leather,  or  any  other  article.  He  wished  not 
to  rel«  --ol  ut  ion.  because  he  wished  to  meet  the  ques- 

tion. Let  it  l>o  rrfcrml,  ami  it  would  be  claimed  as  the 
commencement  of  a  system,  and  an  earnest  of  what  was  to 


1797.]  MODIFICATIONS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  45 

bo  done.  When  the  merchants  of  this  country  had  too  much 
capital  to  employ  it  in  commerce,  they  would  either  employ 
it  in  the  improvement  of  the  country,  or  convert  it  into  man- 
ufactories ;  and  until  this  was  the  case,  men  of  capital  would 
not  employ  it  in  manufactures.  All  that  could  be  done  in 
manufactures  in  this  country,  Mr.  M.  said,  was  already  done 
in  the  domestic  way.  The  attempt  to  go  to  manufactures 
before  there  is  a  surplus  capital,  would  be  like  an  attempt  to 
raise  vegetables  in  a  hot-house.  The  people  who  were  in 
favor  of  the  embargo,  did  not  look  upon  it  as  the  gentleman 
did,  as  an  encouragement  to  manufacturing  ;  that  was  not 
the  object.  Of  what  advantage  was  it  to  the  community  to 
tax  themselves  to  make  these  •  articles  ?  While  there  were 
so  many  other  ways  of  making  a  living,  people  would  not 
go  into  manufacturing  houses.  The  Government  must  be 
changed  before  manufacturing  could  succeed.  Laws  must 
be  passed  to  prevent  workmen  from  conspiring  to  raise  their 
wages  ;  and  the  laws  of  England  on  this  subject  would  be- 
come necessary  here.  Since  the  tax  had  been  laid  on  leather 
manufactures  imported,  the  price  of  articles  of  leather  had 
nearly  doubled.  Going  into  this  system,  he  feared,  would 
encourage  smuggling  ;  and  what  then  would  become  of 
manufactures  ?  They  would  be  destroyed.  He  wished  an 
immediate  decision  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  Pickmau,  of  Massachusetts,  followed  on  the  same  side. 
Ho  said  he  was  in  favor  of  encouraging  manufactures  ;  but 
gentlemen  should  not  suffer  their  zeal  for  manufactures  to  in- 
jure the  more  important  interests  of  agriculture  or  commerce. 
He  feared  an  essential  injury  might  be  done  to  the  country, 
by  converting  agriculturists  into  manufacturers.  We  now 
hold  out  considerable  encouragement  to  manufactures  ;  for 
almost  all  the  revenue  is  derived  from  imposts  on  foreign 
manufactures,  the  duties  on  which  already  average  30  per 
cent.  ;  and  that  is  surely  sufficient.  It  was  not  perfectly 
true  in  political  arithmetic,  that  two  and  two  made  four  ; 
for  by  doubling  the  duty  they  would  not  double  the  revenue, 
but  very  probably  much  diminish  it.  He  said  he  did  be- 
lieve that  some  manufactures  deserved  encouragmcnt  ;  but 
the  House  should  proceed  cautiously.  The  subject  could  not 
be  discussed  at  this  short  session,  and  the  very  agitation  of 
the  question,  by  inducing  men  to  establish  manufactures  in 
expectation  of  encouragement,  might  do  great  injury. 

Mr.  Holland,  of  North  Carolina,  thought  very  differently 
from  his  colleague  (Mr.  Macon)  on  this  subject.  He  thought 


46  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  II. 

manufactures  ought  to  be  encouraged,  and  that  this  nation 
would  never  be  completely  independent  till  they  were  fostered 
in  preference  to  other  systems.  It  had  been  asked,  what 
good  was  to  be  derived  from  the  establishment  of  manufac- 
tures ?  Mr.  H.  said  it  would  place  the  Government  in  a  state 
of  independence  of  all  the  casualties  of  the  ocean  and  of  ex- 
ternal commerce.  We  should  not  then  be  convulsed  by  the 
storms  of  Europe.  We  ought  not  to  encourage  foreign  enter- 
prise, when,  with  the  same  enterprise  at  home,  we  could  be 
equally  happy,  and  less  subject  to  disasters.  From  external 
commerce  had  arisen  all  our  difficulties  •,  from  that  source 
were  derived  all  our  navy  and  army  bills.  We  should,  com- 
paratively, stand  in  need  of  no  revenue,  if  we  should  turn  our 
attention  to  the  cultivation  of  our  own  resources.  Distant 
from  the  scenes  of  war,  nothing  was  necessary  to  make  us 
happy  but  the  encouragement  of  our  own  manufactures.  II 
was  unjust  not  to  protect  them  ;  for  we  could  not  protect  our 
commerce  on  the  ocean,  and  ought  to  turn  our  eyes  to  the 
measures  which  would  make  us  comfortable  and  happy  ;  and 
this  was  one  of  them.  With  this  nation,  said  Mr.  II.,  agri- 
culture was  the  first,  manufactures  the  second,  and  external 
commerce  a  minor  consideration.  The  situation  of  Great 
Britain  rendered  external  commerce  absolutely  necessary  to 
her  existence  ;  but  we  were  differently  situated,  and  could  do 
without  it.  Without  her  wooden  walls,  Great  Britain  would 
long  before  this  time  have  become  a  province  of  the  Conti- 
nent. But  we  had  our  own  resources,  independent  of  the 
world,  and  ought  to  cultivate  them. 

Mr.  Love,  of  Virginia,  regarded  this  an  important  subject ; 
but  the  attention  of  the  House  had  been  prematurely,  and  in 
an  irregular  manner  called  to  it. 

The  question  for  reference  to  the  Committee  was  lost : 
Yeas,  49  ;  nays,  56. 

On  the  7th  of  June,  was  presented  a  petition  of  sundry 
manufacturers  of  hemp  into  linen,  residing  in  Kentucky,  pray- 
ing for  such  additional  duties  upon  the  importation  of  hemp 
and  coarse  linens,  as  would  effectually  encourage  the  manu- 
facture of  those  articles  within  the  United  States. 

The  petitioners  had,  since  the  passage  of  the  "  embargo" 
and  "  non-importation  acts,"  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of 
hemp  into  linen,  and  had  invested  much  capital  in  preparing 
machinery  and  erecting -buildings  for  the  same.  *  As  it  had 

*  Among  the  acts  of  Great  Britain  which  led  to  the  war  of  1812,  were 


1810.1  SECRETARY  GALLATIN'S  REPORT.  47 

become  probable  that  the  causes  of  this  act  would  soon  be 
removed,  and  that  the  act  would  consequently  be  repealed, 
the  petitioners  ask  for  protection  to  the  manufacture  of  coarse 
linens,  to  prevent  "  the  annihilation  of  their  establishments." 

On  the  19th  of  April,  1810,  in  obedience  to  a  resolution 
of  the  house,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  [Mr.  Gallatin] 
communicated  to  that  body  a  report  on  American  manufac- 
tures, in  which  is  given  a  favorable  statement  of  the  progress 
of  the  various  branches  of  domestic  manufacture. 

Of  the  manufacture  of  cotton,  the  report  says  :  "  The  first 
cotton  mill  was  erected  in  the  State  of  Rhode  Island,  in  the 
year  1791  ;  another  in  1795  ;  and  two  more  in  the  State  of 
Massachusetts,  in  the  years  1803  and  1804.  During  the  three 
succeeding  years,  ten  more  were  erected  or  commenced  in 
Rhode  Island,  and  one  in  Connecticut ;  making  altogether 
fifteen  mills  erected  before  the  year  1808,  working  at  that 
time  about  8,000  spindles,  and  producing  about  300,000 
pounds  of  yarn  a  year. 

Returns  have  been  received  of  eighty-seven  mills  which 
were  erected  at  the  end  of  the  year  1809  *  sixty-two  of  which, 
(forty-eight  water,  and  fourteen  horse  mills,)  were  in  opera- 
tion, and  worked,  at  that  time,  31,000  spindles.  The  other 
twenty -five  will  all  be  in  operation  in  the  course  of  this  year, 
and,  together  with  the  former  ones,  (most  of  which  are  in- 
creasing their  machinery,)  will,  by  the  estimate  received, 
work  more  than  80,000  swindles  at  the  commencement  of  the 

the  impressment  of  American  seamen,  and  the  compelling  of  them  to  serve 
on  British  ships  of  war,  and  the  blockade,  or  pretended  blockade  of  cer- 
tain ports  on  tho  Continent  of  Europe.  Though  the  blockade  was  a  mea- 
sure against  those  nations  with  which  Great  Britain  was  at  war,  it  ope- 
rated very  injuriously  upon  our  commerce,  and  was  also  held  by  our  Gov- 
ernment to  be  an  unlawful  blockade.  Yet  American  vessels,  though  not 
proceeding  to  blockaded  ports,  and  their  cargoes,  though  not  contraband 
of  war,  were  seized  and  condemned.  As  a  means  of  bringing  the  British 
Government  to  a  sense  of  justice,  it  was  proposed  to  prohibit  the  importa- 
tion of  all  goods,  the  product  or  manufacture  of  Great  Britain.  But  as 
there  were  many  British  products  which  could  not  well  be  dispensed  with 
by  the  people  of  this  country,  such  only  were  prohibited  as  could  be  sup- 
plied by  our  own  industry.  The  articles  enumerated  in  the  "  non-impor- 
tation act,''  were  all  articles  of  which  leather,  silk,  hemp  or  flax,  and  tin 
or  brass  were  the  materials  of.  chief  value,  tin  in  sheets  excepted ;  woolen 
cloths  costing  over  five  shillings,  sterling  per  square  yard  ;  woolen  hosiery ; 
window  glass  and  all  other  glass  ware  ;  silver  and  plated  wares  ;  paper  of 
every  description  ;  nails  and  spikes  ;  hats  ;  clothing  ready  made  ;  millin- 
ery of  all  kinds ;  playing  cards ;  beer,  ale,  aud  porter,  and  pictures  and 
prints. 


48  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  III. 

year  1811."    The  secretary  estimates  the  general  results  for 
that  year  as  follows  : 

"  Number  of  mills,  87  ;  number  of  spin'dles,  80,000  ;  amount 
of  capital  employed,  $4,800,000.  Cotton  used,  3,600,000 
pounds  ;  value,  $720,000.  Yarn  spun,  2,880,000  pounds  ; 
value,  $3,240,000.  Persons  employed — men,  500  ;  women 
and  children,  3,500.  Total  employed,  4,000." 

Of  the  manufactures  of  leather,  he  says  :  The  annual  im- 
portation of  boots  and  slues  amounts  to  3,250  pairs  of  boots, 
and  59,000  pair  of  shoes,  principally  kid  and  morocco.  The 
annual  exportation  of  the  same  articles  of  American  manu- 
facture, to  8,500  pair  of  boots,  and  127,000  pair  of  shoes. 
The  shoe  manufactures  of  New  Jersey  are  extensive.  That 
of  Lynn,  in  Massachusetts,  makes  100,000  pair  of  women's 
shoes  annually.  The  value  of  alt  the  articles  annually  manu- 
factured in  the  United  States,  which  are  embraced  under  this 
head,  [leather]  may  be  estimated  at  $20,000,000.  [Harness 
and  saddles  ore  included  in  this  estimate.] 

Of  hats,  the  annual  importations  amount  to  $350,000  ;  the 
annual  exportation  of  American  hats,  to  $100,000.  The  do- 
mestic manufacture  was  considered  nearly  equal  to  the  home 
consumption.  In  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  the  number 
an  anally  made  was  estimated  at  1,550,000,  worth  about 
$5,000,000  ;  and  the  value  of  all  the  hats  annually  made  in 
tho  United  States,  was  estimated  at  nearly  $10,000,000.^) 

Of  soap  and  tallow  candles,  the  annual  importations  were, 
candles,  158,000  pounds  ;  soap,  470JPBO  pounds.  The  annual 
exportations  of  domestic  manufacture  were,  candles,  1,775,- 
000  pounds  ;  soap,  2,220,000  pounds.  The  annual  domestic 
manufacture,  including  those  used  in  private  families  for  their 
own  use,  about  $8,000^,000. 

Refined  sugar  was  imported  from  1803  to  1807,  inclusive, 
to  the  amount,  annually,  of  47,000  pounds  ;  the  annual  ex- 
portation amounted,  during  the  same  years,  to  150,000  pounds. 
The  quantity  annually  made  was  estimated  at  5,000,000 
pounds,  worth  $1,000,000.  Capital  employed,  $3,500,000.  A 
drawback  on  refined  sugar  exported,  equivalent  to  the  duty 
paid  on  the  importation  of  the  brown  sugar  used  in  the  re- 
fined sugar,  had  formerly  been  allowed,  but  was  now  discon- 
tinued. It  w.  d,  if  this  duty  were  again  allowed,  the 
foreign  demand  would  be  extended. 

was  imported  annually  to  the  amount  of  6,200 
tuns.  Rut  tlu1  interruption  of  commerce  had  greatly  pro- 
moted the  Cultivation  of  hemp  in  Massachusetts,  New  York,. 


1310.]  SECRETARY  GALLATIN'S  REPORT.  49 

Kentucky,  and  several  other  places  ;  and  it  was  believed  a 
sufficient  quantity  would  soon  be  produced'  in  the  United 
States. 

The  manufactures  of  hemp,  viz.,  ropes,  cables,  and  cordage, 
were  about  equal  to  the  demand  ;  the  exportations  of  Ameri- 
can manufactures  for  1806  and  1801,  having  exceeded  the 
average  of  6,500  quintals,  and  the  importations  having  fallen 
short  of  4,200  quintals. 

Of  iron  arid  manufactures  of  iron,  very  imperfect  informa- 
tion had  been  received.  Iron  ore  was  abundant,  and  numer- 
ous furnaces  and  forges  had  been  erected.  They  supplied  a 
sufficient  quantity  of  hollow  ware  and  castings  ;  but  of  bar 
iion,  about  4,500  tuns  were  annually  imported  from  "Russia, 
and  probably  about  an  equal  quantity  from  Sweden  and  Eng- 
land together.  A  vague  estimate  stated  the  amount  of  bar 
iron  used  annually  in  the  United  States,  at  50,000  tuns,  which 
would  leave  about  40,000  for  that  of  American  manufacture. 
From  the  demand,  however,  and  from  want  of  proper  atten- 
tion in  the  manufacture,  much  inferior  Ameiican  iron  was 
brought  to  market. 

The  annual  importations  of  sheet,  slit,  and  hoop  iron, 
amounted  to  565  tuns  ;  and  the  quantity  rolled  and  slit  in 
the  United  States,  was  estimated  at  7,000  tuns.  In  Massa- 
chusetts alone  were  thirteen  rolling  and  slitting  mills,  in 
which  about  3,500  tuns  of  bar  iron,  principally  from  Russia, 
were  annually  rolled  or  slit.  A  portion  was  used  for  sheet 
iron,  and  nail  rods  for  Brought  nails  ;  but  two-thirds  of  the 
whole  quantity  of  bar  iron  flattened  by  machinery  in  the 
United  States,  was  used  in  the  manufacture  of  cut  nails, 
which  had  been  extended  throughout  the  whole  country,  and, 
boing  an  American  invention,  substituting  machinery  for 
manual  labor,  deserved  particular  notice.  The  annual  pro- 
dvict  of  that  branch  alone,  might  be  estimated  at  $1,200,000  ; 
and,  exclusive  of  the  saving  of  fuel,  the  expense  of  manufac- 
turing cut  nails  was  not  one-third  part  of  that  of  forging 
wrought  nails.  About  280  tuns  were  already  annually  ex- 
ported ;  but  the  United  States  continued  to  import,  annually, 
more  than  1,500  tuns  of  wrought  nails  and  spikes.  An  in- 
crease of  duty  on  these,  and  a  drawback  on  the  exportation 
of  cut  nails,  were  generally  asked  for. 

A  considerable  quantity  of  blistered  steel,  and  some  refined 
steel,  were  made  in  America,  but  the  foreign  importations 
exceeded  550  tuns. 

The  manufactures  of  iron  consisted  chiefly  of  agricultural 

a 


50  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  III. 

implements,  and  of  the  usual  work  performed  by  blacksmiths  ; 
to  which  might  be  added  anchors,  shovels,  spades,  axes, 
scythes,  and  a  great  variety  of  the  coarser  articles  of  iron- 
mongery ;  but  cutlery,  and  all  the  finer  species  of  hardware 
and  of  steel  work,  were  mostly  imported  from  Great  Britain. 

At  the  two  public  armories  of  Springfield  and  Harper's 
Ferry,  19,000  muskets  were  annually  made.  About  20,000 
more  were  made  at  other  factories. 

The  value  of  all  the  iron  and  manufactures  of  iron  annually 
made  in  the  United  States,  the  Secretary  believed  to  be  from 
$12,000,000  to  $15,000,000.  The  importations,  including  bar 
iron  and  every  description  of  manufactures  of  iron  and  steel, 
were  estimated  at  about  $4,000,000. 

Of  spirituous  and  malt  liquors,  there  were  imported  during 
the  years  1806  and  1807,  9,750,000  gallons  of  spirituous 
liquors,  yielding  a  net  annual  revenue  of  $2,865,000  ;  and 
only  185,000  gallons  of  malt  liquors.  The  annual  exporta- 
tions  of  American  beer  and  cider,  were  187,000  gallons. 
The  quantity  of  spirits  distilled  in  the  United  States,  was 
about  15,000,000  gallons  ;  and  the  aggregate  value  of  spirit- 
uous and  malt  liquors  annually  made,  was  estimated  at  not 
less  than  $10,000,000. 

The  Secretary  also  reported  on  the  manufactures  of  wood,  cop- 
per and  brass,  lead,  gunpowder,  plated  and  japanned  wares, 
earthen  and  glass  ware,  household  and  several  other  manu- 
factures, in  most  of  which  considerable  progress  had  been 
made. 

Calico  printing  had  been  attempted  ;  but  the  manufactur- 
ers, without  additional  dirties,  could  not  stand  the  competition 
of  similar  foreign  articles. 

The  annual  product  of  American  manufactures  cf  all  kinds, 
was  presumed  to  exceed  $120,000,000.  And  probably  the 
raw  materials  used,  and  the  provisions  and  other  articles  con- 
sumed, by  the  manufacturers,  created  a  home  market  for  agricul- 
tural products  nearly  equal  to  that  arising  from  the  foreign  demand. 
Considering  the  abundance  of  land  compared  with  the  popu- 
lation, the  high  price  of  labor,  and  the  want  of  a  sufficient 
capital  ;  the  superior  attractions  of  agricultural  pursuits,  and 
the  great  extension  of  American  commerce  during  the  late 
European  wars  ; — all  of  which  had  combined  to  retard  the 
progress  of  manufactures — the  result  was  more  favorable 
than  might  have  been  expected.  Several  of  these  obstacles, 
however,  had  been  removed  or  lessened.  The  cheapness  of 
provisions  had,  to  some  extent,  counterbalanced  the  high 


1810.]  SECRETARY  GALLATIN'S  REPORT.  51 

price  of  manual  labor  ;  and  this  labor  was  now,  in  many  im- 
portant branches,  nearly  superseded  by  the  introduction  of 
machinery.  A  great  American  capital  had  been  acquired 
during  the  last  twenty  years  ;  and  the  injurious  violations  of 
our  neutral  commerce,  by  forcing  industry  and  capital  into 
other  channels,  had  broken  inveterate  habits,  and  given  a 
general  impulse,  to  which  must  be  ascribed  the  great  increase 
of  manufactures  during  the  last  two  years. 

The  revenue  of  the  United  States  being  principally  derived 
from  duties  on  the  importation  of  foreign  merchandise,  these 
also  have  operated  as  a  premium  in  favor  of  American  man- 
ufactures. 

No  cause,  the  Secretary  believed,  had  more  promoted  the 
general  prosperity  of  the  United  States,  than  the  absence  of 
those  systems  of  internal  restrictions  and  monopoly  which 
continued  to  disfigure  the  state  of  society  in  other  countries. 
No  law  here  confined  a  man  to  a  particular  occupation,  or 
place,  or  excluded  any  citizen  from  any  branch  he  might 
think  proper  to  pursue.  Industry  was  free  and  unfettered  ; 
every  species  of  trade,  commerce,  art,  profession,  and  manu- 
facture, being  equally  opened  to  all,  without  requiring  any 
previous  regular  apprenticeship,  admission,  or  license.  Hence 
the  progress  of  America  had  not  been  confined  to  the  im- 
provement of  her  agriculture,  and  to  the  rapid  formation  of 
new  settlements  ;  but  her  citizens  had  extended  their  com- 
merce through  every  part  of  the  globe,  and  successfully  car- 
ried on  even  those  branches  for  which  a  monopoly  had 
heretofore  been  considered  necessary. 

The  same  principle  had  also  accelerated  the  progress  of 
manufactures,  and  must  ultimately  give,  in  that  branch,  a  de- 
cided superiority  to  our  citizens  over  those  of  countries 
oppressed  by  taxes,  restrictions,  and  monopolies.  It  was 
believed  that,  even  then,  the  only  powerful  obstacle  against 
which  American  manufactures  had  to  struggle,  arose  from 
the  vastly  superior  capital  of  the  first  manufacturing  nation 
of  Europe,  which  enabled  her  merchants  to  give  very  long 
credits,  to  sell  on  small  profits,  and  to  make  occasional  sac- 
rifices. 

The  information  which  the  Secretary  had  obtained,  was 
not  sufficient  to  enable  him  to  submit,  in  conformity  with  the 
resolution  of  the  House,  the  plan  best  calculated  to  protect 
and  promote  American  manufactures.  The  most  obvious 
means  were  bounties,  increased  duties  on  importation,  and 
loans  by  Government.  Occasional  premiums  might  be  beiie- 


52  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  Ill- 

ficial  ;  but  a  general  system  of  bounties  was  more"  applicable 
to  articles  exported  than  to  those  manufactured  for  home 
consumption. 

The  present  system  of  duties  might  be  equalized  and  im- 
proved, so  as  to  protect  some  species  of  manufactures  without 
affecting  the  revenue.  But  prohibitory  duties  were  liable  to 
the  treble  objection  of  destroying  competition,  of  taxing  the 
consumer,  and  of  diverting  capital  and  industry  into  channels 
generally  less  profitable  to  the  nation  than  those  which 
would  naturally  have  been  pursued  by  individual  interest  left 
to  itself.  A  moderate  increase  would  be  less  dangerous,  and, 
if  adopted,  should  be  continued  during  a  certain  period  ;  for 
the  repeal  of  a  duty  once  laid,  injured  those  who  relied  on  its 
permanency,  as  had  been  exemplified  in  the  salt  manu- 
facture. 

Since,  however,  the  comparative  want  of  capital  was  the 
principal  obstacle  to  the  introduction  and  advancement 
of  manufactures  in  America,  the  most  efficient  and  obvious 
remedy  seemed  to  consist  in  supplying  that  capital.  .  The 
extension  of  banks  might  give  some  assistance  ;  but  their 
operation  was  limited  to  a  few  places  ;  nor  did  it  comport 
with  the  nature  of  banks  to  lend  for  periods  so  long  as  were 
requisite  for  the  establishment  of  manufactures.  The  United 
States  might  create  a  circulating  stock,  bearing  a  low  rate  of 
interest,  and  lend  it  at  par  to  manufacturers,  on  principles 
somewhat  similar  to  that  formerly  adopted  by  the  States  of 
New  York  and  Pennsylvania  in  their  loan  offices.  It  was  be- 
lieved that  a  plan  might  be  devised  by  which  $5,000,000  a 
year,  but  not  exceeding,  in  the  whole,  $20,000,000,  might 
be  thus  lent,  without  any  material  risk  of  ultimate  loss, 
or  without  taxing  or  injuring  any  other  part  of  the  com- 
munity. 

During  the  session  of  1811-1812,  several  petitions  for  pro- 
tection were  presented  to  Congress.  One  was  from  inhabi- 
tants of  New  Jersey  engaged  in  the  cultivation  of  hemp. 
They  say  :  "  Your  petitioners  have  seen  with  regret  and  dis- 
appointment, that  the  state  of  affairs  abroad,  which  has 
curtailed  or  annihilated  almost  every  other  branch  of  com- 
merce, has  greatly  increased  the  importation  of  hemp,  much 
to  their  individual  prejudice,  and  (as  they  beg  permission 
to  show)  to  the  material  prejudice  of  the  country  generally." 

Another  petition  was  from  iron  manufacturers  of  the  same 
State  ;  who  say  :  "  While  our  commerce  was  undisturbed  by 
the  freebooters  of  Europe,  our  iron  manufactories  afforded  us 


1811-12.]  PETITIONS  TO  CONGRESS.  53 

a  living  profit.  Of  late,  the  large  importations  from  Eussia 
and  Sweden,  and  consequent  reduction  of  price  ;  the  diminu- 
tion of  commerce,  and  the  great  difficulty  of  making  sale  ot 
our  iron  for  cash,  have  so  effectually  embarrassed  our  opera- 
tions, that  really  we  know  not  what  course  to  pursue." 

A  similar  petition  was  presented  from  the  New  Hampshire 
Iron  Factory  Company,  who  had,  as  they  said,  "  never  re- 
alized one  dollar  for  the  use  of  their  capital  stock,  of  more 
than  $100,000."  They  therefore  pray,  "that,  when  com- 
merce is  laboring  under  great  embarrassments,  from  the 
oppressive  measures  of  belligerent  Powers,  that  Congress,  in 
their  wisdom,  would  extend  their  fostering  aid  and  encourage- 
ment to  American  manufactures,  by  imposing  heavy  duties 
on  .all  imported  iron,  hollow  iron  ware  and  shapes  of  various 
kinds,  an  abundant  supply  of  which,  with  proper  encourage- 
ment, may  be  cast  in  our  own  country." 

Manufacturers  of  wrought  iron  and  of  steel,  of  the  State  ot 
Pennsylvania,  represent,  in  their  petition,  "  That,  in  common 
with  other  citizens  of  the  United  States  pursuing  the  same 
branches  of  business,  they  expected  a  reward,  by  a  just  and 
reasonable  sale  of  their  productions,  for  the  expense  and  in- 
dustry necessary  to  erect,  carry  on,  and  support,  works  ot 
such  public  utility  to  the  American  people.  That  to  their 
surprise,  they  find,  that  the  subjects  of  those  Governments  or 
Kingdoms  in  Europe,  who  have  endeavored  to  injure,  if  not 
to  annihilate  the  commerce  of  the  United  States,  are  bringing 
into  the  American  market  their  wrought  iron,  and  endeavor- 
ing to  undersell  the  American  manufacturers  of  those  articles, 
whilst  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  is  subjected,  in 
those  countries,  to  such  restrictions,  duties,  risk,  arid  danger, 
as  nearly  to  destroy  all  the  advantages  the  United  States 
have  any  right  to  calculate  on  by  commerce." 

To  appreciate  the  grievances  of  the  petitioners,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  understand  the  history  of  our  commercial  embarrass- 
ments at  that  period.  We  have  already  noticed  the  embargo 
of  1807,  and  the  partial  non-importation  act  which  followed. 
As  the  effect  of  the  embargo,  our  commerce  was  almost  anni- 
hilated ;  and  great  dissatisfaction  prevailed.  Not  being  per- 
mitted to  export,  agricultural  labor  was  poorly  rewarded  ; 
and  manufactures  were  obtained,  if  at,  all,  at  very  high  prices. 
Such  was  the  height  to  which  the  disaffection  arose  in  the 
Eastern  States,  as  to  cause  apprehensions  that,  if  the  mea- 
sure should  be  persisted  in,  it  would  meet  with  violent  resist- 
ance. 


54  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEAL  [Chap.  III. 

To  mitigate  the  rigor  of  this  restrictive  policy,  Congress, 
on  the  1st  of  March,  1809,  passed  an  act,  since  called  the 
non-intercourse  law,  by  which  the  embargo  law  was  repealed, 
and  all  intercourse  with  Great  Britain  and  France  prohibited. 
The  act,  however,  provided,  that  if  either  nation  should  so 
revoke  or  modify  her  edicts,  as  that  they  should  cease  to 
violate  the  neutral  commerce  of  the  United  States — which 
fact  the  President  should  declare  by  proclamation — the  trade 
suspended  by  this  act  and  the  embargo  should  be  renewed 
with  that  nation. 

In  retaliation  of  the  non-intercourse  act,  Napoleon  issued  a 
decree  more  sweeping  in  its  operation  on  American  property 
than  any  that  had  preceded  it.  Any  American  vessel  and 
cargo  entering  any  port  of  France  or  her  colonies,  was  liable 
to  be  seized  and  sold. 

The  non-intercourse  law  having  expired,  Congress,  on  the 
1st  of  May,  1810,  passed  a  new  act  of  a  like  nature,  which  pro- 
vided that,  if  either  Great  Britain  or  France  should,  before 
the  3d  of  March,  1811,  so  revoke  or  modify,  her  edicts,  as 
that  they  should  cease  to  violate  our  neutral  commerce,  and 
if  the  other  nation  should  not,  within  three  months  thereafter, 
do  the  same,  then  the  act  interdicting  commercial  inter- 
course, should  be  revived  against  the  nation  refusing  to  re- 
voke. It  was  from  the  effects  of  this  policy  that  these  pe- 
titioners prayed  for  relief. 

To  meet  the  expenses  of  the  anticipated  war  with  Great 
Britain,  in  addition  to  the  loans  which  were  authorized  at 
this  session,  an  act  was  passed  imposing  an  additional  duty 
of  one  hundred  per  cent,  upon  the  permanent  duties  then  im- 
posed upon  all  goods  imported  from  any  foreign  port  or 
place  ;  in  other  words,  doubling  the  duties.  And  to  these,  ten 
per  cent,  was  to  be  added  if  imported  in  foreign  vessels.  An 
additional  tunnage  duty  also,  at  the  rate  of  $1,50  per  tun, 
was  required  to  be  laid  upon  all  foreign  vessels  entered  in 
tbo  United  States,  making  such  duty  $2  per  tun. 


1815.]  MR.  MADISON'S  MESSAGE.  55 


CHAPTER    IV. 

Encouragement  to  manufactures  recommended  by  President  Madison.  Petitions. 
Report  of  the  Committee  of  Commerce  and  Manufactures.  Report  of  Secretary 
Dallas.  Bill  reported  by  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means.  Bill  debated,  and 
passed.  Acts  of  1817  and  1818. 

THE  peace  of  1815,  marks  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  the 
policy  of  this  country.  From  the  first  organization  of  the 
Government  under  the  Constitution,  American  industry  had 
been  more  or  less  affected  by  special  causes,  both  external 
and  internal.  A  long  war  had  existed  in  Europe  ;  and  dur- 
ing a  large  portion  of  this  period,  the  United  States  had  been 
involved  in  a  commercial  warfare  with  two  of  the  most  power- 
ful of  the  belligerents,  and  for  the  last  three  years  in  a  state 
of  actual  war  with  one  of  them.  Laws  had  been  enacted 
from  time  to  time,  which  had,  to  a  considerable  extent,  pro- 
moted the  progress  of  manufactures.  Much,  however,  must 
be  ascribed  to  necessity.  During  the  suspension  of  our  com- 
mercial intercourse,  the  supplies  of  foreign  manufactures 
were  inadequate  to  the  wants  of  the  country,  and  much  capi- 
tal was  turned  into  this  branch  of  industry. 

On  the  return  of  peace,  the  channels  of  our  former  foreign, 
trade  were  reopened.  The  double  duties  mentioned  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  which  were  to  continue  for  one  year  after 
the  termination  of  the  war,  were  soon  to  cease,  (February 
18,  1816  ;)  and  the  usual  influx  of  foreign  goods  was  antici- 
pated. Our  manufacturers,  many  of  whom  had  just  invested 
their  capital  in  this  business,  were  alarmed,  and  applied  to 
Congress  for  protection. 

•  The  first  session  of  Congress  after  the  close  of  the  war, 
which  was  the  first  session  of  the  14th  Congress,  commenced 
the  4th  of  December,  1815.  At  this  session,  the  attention  of 
the  Government .  was  naturally  directed  to  the  adaptation  of 
its  policy  to  our  altered  condition.  The  general  peace  of  Eu- 
rope,, as  well  as  that  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  demanded  a  change  in  our  commercial  regulations. 
Provision  must  be  made  for  the  payment  of  the  public  debt, 
which  had  been  vastly  increased  by  the  war.  Importations, 
it  was  foreseen,  must  largely  augment  our  indebtedness  to 
foreigners,  and  the  more,  because  the  peace  of  Europe  would 


56  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  .   [Chap.  IV 

greatly  lessen  the  foreign  demand  for  our  agricultural  pro- 
ducts, and  seriously  affect  our  carrying  trade.  A  similar 
state  of  things  had  not  existed  since  the  establishment  of  the 
present  Government. 

President  Madison,  in  his  annual  message,  thus  recom- 
mended "  a  tariff  on  manufactures  :" 

"  In  adjusting  the  duties  on  imports  to  the  object  of  reve- 
nue, the  influence  of  the  tariff  on  manufactures  will  neces- 
sarily present  itself  for  consideration.  However  wise  the 
theory  may  be  which  leaves  to  the  sagacity  and  interest  of 
individuals  the  application  of  their  industry  and  resources, 
there  are  in  this,  as  in  other  cases,  exceptions  to  the  general 
rule.  Besides  the  condition  which  the  theory  itself  implies 
of  a  reciprocal  adoption  by  other  nations,  experience  teaches 
that  so  many  circumstances  must  occur  in  introducing  and 
maturing  manufacturing  establishments,  especially  of  the 
more  complicated  kinds,  that  a  country  may  remain  long 
without  them,  although  sufficiently  advanced,  and  in  some 
respects  even  peculiarly  fitted  for  carrying  them  on  with 
success.  Under  circumstances  giving  a  powerful  impulse  to 
manufacturing  industry,  it  has  made  among  us  a  progress, 
and  exhibited  an  efficiency,  which  justifies  the  belief  that, 
with  a  protection  not  more  than  is  due  to  the  enterprising 
citizens  whose  interests  are  now  at  stake,  it  will  become  at 
an  early  day  not  only  safe  against  occasional  competitions? 
from  abroad,  but  a  source  of  domestic  wealth,  and  even  of 
external  commerce.  In  selecting  the  branches  more  espe- 
cially entitled  to  the  public  patronage,  a  preference  is  obvi- 
ously claimed  by  such  as  will  relieve  the  United  States  from 
a  dependence  on  foreign  supplies,  ever  subject  to  casual  fail- 
ures, for  articles  necessary  for  the  public  defense,  or  con- 
nected with  the  primary  wants  of  individuals.  It  will  be 
an  additional  recommendation  of  particular  manufactures, 
whore  the  materials  for  them  are  extensively  drawn  from  our 
agriculture,  and  consequently  impart  and  insure  to  the  great 
f  national  prosperity  and  independence  an  encourage- 
ment which  cannot  fail  to  be  rewarded." 

Many  articles  of  domestic  manufacture,  household  goods, 
&c.f  had  been  heavily  taxed  during  the  war.  At  this  session, 
•••us  petitions  for  the-  repeal  of  these  taxes  were  pre- 
!  ;  also  petitions  fur  protection  to  different  kinds  of 
manufactures,  by  duties  upon  the  foreign,  and  especially  upon 
coarse  cottons.  Two  of  these  petitions  were  from  manufac- 
turers in  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut.  As  their  cases  are 


i815-lC.J  PETITIONS  TO  CONGRESS.  57 

ably  .stated,  some  of  their  arguments  will  be  read  with  in- 
terest. 

They  represent  that  they  had,  during  the  interruption  of 
our  foreign  commerce,  expended  much  money  and  labor,  and 
put  into  operation  extensive  works,  for  manufacturing  cotton 
goods.  By  means  of  their  exertions  and  of  the  commodities 
furnished  from  these  sources,  the  pressure  of  the  late  war 
was  considerably  alleviated.  But  from  the  difficulties  at- 
tending the  establishment  of  new  branches  of  manufacture  ; 
the  scarcity  of  persons  properly  qualified  to  superintend  their 
operation  ;  and  the  enormous  compensation  demanded  by 
them  ;  and  the  high  price  of  labor  throughout  the  country  ; 
they  had  not  yet  been  remunerated  for  their  expenditures, 
while  the  prospect  which  was  just  opening  of  a  free  impor- 
tation of  the  same  articles  of  foreign  manufacture,  threatened 
to  crush  their  establishments,  and  sink  the  capital  invested 
in  them.  Under  these  circumstances  of  impending  ruin,  they 
desire  -an  absolute  or  virtual  prohibition  of  the  importation  of 
foreign  cotton  fabrics  of  a  coarse  texture. 

In  favor  of  their  claims  upon  the  attention  of  the  Govern- 
ment,'they  urge,  that  the  establishments  already  erected  in 
the  United  States  are  nearly  or  quite  capable  of  supplying 
the  demand  for  these  fabrics  for  home  consumption.  They 
have  afforded  the  means  of  employment  to  thousands  of  poor 
women  and  children,  which  the  ordinary  business  of  agricul- 
ture does  not  furnish  them.  They  had  supplied,  at  moderate 
prices,  the  demands  of  the  country  and  the  Government  dar- 
ing the  recent  interruption  of  our  foreign  trade. 

They  had  also  assisted  the  Southern  agriculturist  by  the 
consumption  of  some  portion  of  that  superfluous  produce 
which  had  been  deprived  of  its  ordinary  vent  in  the  demands 
of  foreign  nations. 

The  petitioners  suggested  that  the  articles  which  might  bo 
subjected  to  large  additional  duties,  or  an  absolute  prohibi- 
tion, were  chiefly  the  production  of  countries  lying  beyond 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  They  were  manufactured,  in  a  large 
proportion,  of  cotton  of  foreign  growth,  and  thus  discouraged 
a  primary  object  of  our  own  agriculture.  They  were  not 
paid  for  with  articles  of  domestic  production,  but  occasioned 
a  continual  drain  of  the  specie  of  the  country.  They  were 
made  of  a  very  inferior  material,  and  in  a  manner  which 
made  them  a  mere  deception  on  the  consumer.  Nearly  all 
Europe  had  legislated  against  them.  They  paid  an  ad  valorem 
duty,  and  added  but  little  to  the  resources  of  the  Treasury. 


68  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IV 

They  afforded  employment  to  but  a  few  tuns  of  our  shipping, 
and  would,  in  all  probability,  be  hereafter  introduced  in  the 
ships,  or  through  the  medium  of  a  rival  nation.  It  was  by 
admitting  those  goods  that  England  would  not  herself  admit 
for  home  consumption,  that  we  encouraged  her  to  make  con- 
quests in  India,  by  thus  making  them  valuable  to  her. 

Every  nation  with  which  we  have  commercial  intercourse, 
had  sought,  by  artificial  means,  to  secure  some  peculiar  ad- 
vantage by  favoring  certain  branches  of  commerce  and  cer- 
tain articles  of  manufacture.  France  had  more  than  six  years 
since  prohibited  all  cotton  and  cotton  goods  from  beyond  the 
Cape  of  Good  Hope.  England  did  not  admit  an  article  for 
home  use  that  had  the  appearance  of  being  manufactured, 
but  gives  a  bounty  to  the  exporter  of  her  own  manufactured 
cottons. 

Another  argument  in  favor  of  the  petitioners  was,  that 
even  the  freest  commerce  was  exposed  to  frequent  interrup- 
tions. And  while  a  nation  is  liable  to  be  embarrassed  by  the 
hostile  aggressions  of  others,  it  behooves  such  nation  to 
guard  its  own  vital  interests.  When  we  rely  upon  a  foreign 
market  for  commodities  of  universal  and  necessary  consump- 
tion, we  receive  only  the  surplus  productions  which  they 
can  spare,  and  subject  ourselves  to  an  absolute  dependence 
upon'their  caprices  or  passions.  Every  nation,  whose  gov- 
ernment had  been  wisely  administered,  and  whose  natural 
resources  interposed  no  serious  barriers  to  the  attempt,  had 
labored  to  place  those  objects  upon  which  they  depended  for 
subsistence  or  defense,  beyond  the  reach  of  accident  or  war, 
by  encouraging  their  domestic  production  at  any  expense  or 
sacrifice. 

The  domestic  manufacture  of  cotton  goods,  the  petitioners 
said,  demanded  such  encouragement,  for  two  reasons  :  First, 
the  cultivation  of  cotton,  as  a  product  of  agriculture,  was  an 
object  of  primary  importance  to  a  large  and  wealthy  section 
of  the  country  ;  secondly,  the  consumption  of  the  coarser 
cotton  fabrics  extended  so  equally  and  universally,  as  to  in- 
clude every  family  in  the  United  States.  Unless  the  domes- 
tic manufacturing  establishments  should  afford  some  vent  for 
the  productions  of  the  Southern  agriculturist,  and  afford  an 
adequate  supply  for  the  extensive  demands  of  a  population  of 
eight  millions,  any  sudden  interruption  of  our  foreign  com- 
merce must  produce  disastrous  consequences  to  the  growers 
and  consumers  <;i'the  article  in  question. 

It  was  apprehended  by  the  petitioners,  that  some  of  the  Eu- 


1815-16.J  PETITIONS  TO  CONGRESS.  59 

ropean  nations  would,  during  the  present  year,  pour  in  upon 
ns  a  flood  of  goods,  at  reduced  prices,  and,  if  necessary,  at  a 
great  pecuniary  sacrifice,  to  crush  our  infant  establishments  ; 
and  thus  obtain  complete  control  over  both  our  consumers 
and  planters.  They  urged,  further,  that,  at  this  period  of 
general  peace  in  Europe,  every  nation  would  become  the  car- 
rier of  its  own  articles  of  production  and  consumption  ;  and 
that  a  large  portion  of  our  accustomed  commerce  must  neces- 
sarily perish,  and  the  means  of  discharging  the  enormous 
balance  in  favor  of  England  would  soon  be  exhausted  by  a 
total  drain  of  specie  from  the  country,  already  at  a  premium 
of  fifteen  per  cent. 

Commerce,  agriculture,  and  manufactures,  had  become  in- 
timately connected,  and,  if  duly  and  proportionably  encour- 
aged, would  mutually  assist  and  support  each  other.  The  in- 
ternal and  coasting  trade,  and  the  communication  between 
the  different  and  remote  sections  of  the  country  would  be 
substituted  for  an  inconsiderable  and  injurious  branch  of 
foreign  commerce,  harmonizing  their  conflicting  and  jarring 
interests,  and  strengthening  the  bonds  of  mutual  dependence. 

The  manufacturers  residing  in  and  near  Providence,  to 
show  the  extent  and  importance  of  the  cotton  manufacture  in 
the  United  States,  stated,  that,  within  a  circle  of  thirty  miles 
from  that  city,  there  were  not  less  than  one  hundred  and 
forty  manufactories,  containing,  in  actual  operation,  more 
than  130,000  spindles,  and  capable  of  holding  a  much  larger 
number,  few  of  them  having  yet  received  their  full  comple- 
ment of  machinery.  About  29,000  bales  of  cotton  were  spun 
in  them  annually,  which,  when  manufactured  into  cloth  of 
different  descriptions,  produced  27,840,000  yards  ;  the  weav- 
ing of  which,  at  the  average  of  eight  cents,  amounted  to  $2,- 
227,200  ;  and  the  value  of  the  cloth  exceeded  $6,000,000. 
The  number  of  persons  employed  in  the  manufacture  was 
about  26,000.  This  estimate  did  not  include  the  numerous 
classes  of  persons  indirectly  connected  with  the  manufacture, 
and  dependent  thereon,  such  as  those  employed  in  furnishing 
the  various  kinds  of  machinery,  in  supplying  the  people  with 
provisions  and  other  necessaries,  in  transporting  goods  to 
and  from  the  manufactories,  together  with  those  engaged  in 
the  coasting  trade,  in  bringing  the  raw  material  and  other 
commodities  required  for  the  use  of  the  establishments,  and 
in  conveying  the  manufactures  to  market. 

The  sugar  planters  of  Louisiana  also  petitioned  Congress 
for  encouragement.  Before  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  vast 


SO  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chaj    £V 

sums  of  money  had  been  lost  to  the  United  States  in  the  ]/ur-< 
chase  of  sugar,  rum  and  molasses,  made  in  the  East  and  West 
Indies,  from  whence  alone  those  commodities  were  obtained. 
In  time  of  war,  supplies  from  thence  were  precarious  ;  and 
the  consumer  could  obtain  those  necessaries,  if  at  all,  only  at 
extravagant  rates.  While  enjoying  the  natural  advantages 
for  supplying  the  wants  of  the  other  States  of  the  Union, 
they  needed  the  fostering  aid  of  the  General  Government. 

On  the  13th  of  February,  1816,  Mr.  Newton,  of  Virginia, 
from  the  Committee  of  Commerce  and  Manufactures,  to  whom 
the  memorials  and  petitions  of  the  manufacturers  of  cotton 
wool  had  been  referred,  submitted  to  the  House  a  report, 
from  which  we  give  a  few  extracts  : 

Prior  to  the  years  1806  and  1807,  establishments  for  manu- 
facturing cotton  wool  had  not  been  attempted,  but  in  a  few 
instances,  and  on  a  limited  scale.  Their  rise  and  progress 
were  attributable  to  embarrassments  to  which  commerce  was 
subjected.  While  commerce  flourished,  the  trade  carried  on 
with  the  continent  of  Europe,  with  the  East  Indies,  and  with 
the  colonies  of  Spain  and  France,  enriched  our  enterprising 
merchants  ;  the  benefits  of  which  were  sensibly  felt  by  the 
agriculturists.  When  external  commerce  was  suspended, 
the  capitalists  became  solicitous  to  give  activity  to  their 
capital.  A  portion  of  it  was  directed  to  the  improvement  of 
agriculture,  and  a  considerable  portion  was  employed  in 
erecting  establishments  for  manufacturing  cotton  wool. 

The  Committee  give  a  few  facts  showing  the  rapid  pro- 
gress made  in  the  business,  and  the  ability  to  carry  it  on 
with  success,  should  a  just  and  liberal  policy  regard  it  as  an 
object  deserving  encouragement : 

In  the  year  1800,  there  were  manufactured  in  the  manufac- 
turing establishments,  500  bales  of  cotton  ;  in  1805,  1,000  ; 
in  1810,  10,000  ;  and  in  1815,  90,000. 

The  capital  employed  in  the  manufacture  was.  .$40,000,000 

Males  employed  from  the  age  of  17  and  upwards. . . .  10,000 

Women  and  female  children > 66,000 

Boys  under  17  years  of  age 24,000 

res  of  100,000  persons,  averaging  $  1 50  each,  $15,000,000 

Cotton  wool  manufactured,  90,000  bales, 

amounting  to Ibs.  27,000,000 

Number  of  yards  of  cotton  of  various  kinds 81,000,000 

per  yard,  averaging  30  cents $24,000,000 

The  rise  and  progress  of  such  establishments  can  excite  no 
wonder.  The  inducements  to  industry,  in  a  free  Government, 


Ibl5-16.]  EEPORT  OF  COMMITTEES  $1 

«Pare  numerous  and  inviting.  EGects  are  always  in  unison 
with  their  causes.  The  inducements  consist  in  the  certainty 
and  security  which  every  citizen  enjoys,  of  exercising  exclu- 
sive dominion  over  the  creations  of  his  genius  and  the  pro- 
ducts of  his  labor  ;  in  procuring  from  his  native  soil,  at  all 
times,  with  facility,  the  raw  materials  that  are  required  ;  and 
in  the  liberal  encouragement  that  will  be  accorded  by  agri- 
culturists to  those  who,  by  their  labor,  keep  up  a  constant 
and  increasing  demand  for  the  produce  of  agriculture. 

Every  State  will  participate  in  those  advantages  ;  the  re- 
sources of  each  will  be  explored,  opened,  and  enlarged.  Dif- 
ferent sections  of  the  Union  will  strike  into  that  line  of  indus- 
try which  is  best  adapted  to  their  interest  and  the  good  of 
the  whole  ;  an  active  and  a  free  intercourse,  facilitated  by 
roads  and  canals,  will  ensue  ;  prejudices  generated  by  dis- 
tance, and  the  want  of  inducements  to  approach  each  other 
and  reciprocate  benefits,  will  be  removed  ;  information  will 
be  extended  ;  the  Union  will  acquire  strength  'and  solidity  ; 
and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  that  of  each 
State,  will  be  regarded  as  fountains  from  which  flow  numer- 
ous streams  of  public  and  private  prosperity. 

The  States  that  are  most  disposed  to  manufactures  as  reg- 
ular occupations,  will  draw  from  the  agricultural  States  all 
the  raw  materials  which  they  want  ;  and  no  small  portion, 
also,  of  the  necessaries  of -life  ;  while  the  latter  will,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  benefits  which  they  at  present  enjoy,  always  com- 
mand, in  peace  or  in  war,  at  moderate  prices,  every  species 
of  manufacture  that  their  wants  may  require.  Should  they 
be  inclined  to  manufacture  for  themselves,  they  can  do  so 
with  success,  because  they  have  all  the  means  in  their  power 
to  erect  manufacturing  establishments  at  pleasure;  Our 
wants  being  supplied  by  our  ingenuity  and  industry,  expor- 
tation of  specie  to  pay  for  foreign  manufactures  will  cease. 
The  proposed  change  of  policy  will  be  to  the  advantage  of  the 
United  States.  The  precious  metals  will  be  attracted  to  them, 
the  diffusion  of  which,  in  a  regular  and  uniform  current 
through  the  great  arteries  and  veins  of  the  body  politic,  will 
give  to  each  member  health  and  vigor. 

In  proportion  as  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  de- 
pends on  agriculture  and  manufactures  as  a  common  basis, 
will  it  increase,  and  become  independent  of  those  revolutions 
and  fluctuations  which  the  ambition  and  jealous}7  of  foreign 
Governments  are  too  apt  to  produce.  Our  navigation  will 
be  quickened,  and,  supported  as  it  will  be  by  internal  re- 


62  'THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IV. 

sources  never  before  at  the  command  of  any  nation,  will  ai 
vance  to  the  extent  of  those  resources.  * 

Of  the  advantages  of  labor-saving-  machinery,  the  Commit- 
tee say  :  The  United  States  require  the  use  of  this  power, 
because  they  do  not  abound  in  population.  The  diminution 
of  manual  labor  by  means  of  machinery  in  cotton  manufac- 
ture in  Great  Britain  was,  in  the  year  1810,  two  hundred  to 
one.  Our  manufacturers  have  already  availed  themselves  of 
this  power,  and  have  profited  by  it.  A  little  more  experi- 
ence in  making  machines  and  in  managing  them  with  skill, 
will  enable  our  manufacturers  to  supply  more  fabrics  than 
are  necessary  for  the  home  demand.  Competition  will  make 
the  prices  low  ;  and  the  extension  of  the  manufactories  will 
produce  that  competition.  And  as  the  operation  of  labor-sav- 
ing machines  requires  few  men,  there  need  be  no  apprehen- 
sions that  agriculture  will  be  in  danger  of  having  its  efficient 
laborers  withdrawn  from  its  service.  On  the  contrary,  the 
manufactories  increasing  the  demand  for  raw  materials,  will 
give  to  agriculture  new  life  and  expansion. 

The  prospects  of  an  enlarged  commerce,  say  the  Commit- 
tee, are  not  flattering.  Every  nation,  in  times  of  peace,  will 
supply  its  own  wants  from  its  own  resources,  or  from  those 
of  other  nations.  When  supplies  are  drawn  from  foreign 
countries,  the  intercourse  which  "will  ensue  will  furnish  em- 
ployment to  the  navigation  only  of  the  countries  connected 
by  their  reciprocal  wants. 

The  Committee,  from  the  consideration  they  had  given  to 
the  subject,  were  convinced  that  manufacturing  establish- 
ments of  cotton  wool  were  of  real  utility  to  the  agricultural 
interest,  and  contributed  much  to  the  prosperity  of  the  Union  ; 
and  they  recommended  an  increase  of  duties  on  cotton  goods 
imported. 

On  the  13th  of  February,  1816,  the  day  on  which  the  com- 
mittee of  Commerce  and  Manufactures  made  their  report,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  [A.  J.  Dallas,]  in  obedience  to  a 
resolution  of  the  House  of  the  23d  of  February,  1815,  report- 
ed "  a  general  tariff  of  duties  proper  to  be  imposed  upon 
imported  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise."  The  report  com- 
prehended— 

i.  A  v,«'w  r>-  the  tariff  nnd  its  incidents  upon  the  Peace 
Estftblifthmefit  Under  this  division  of  the  report,  the  Secre- 
tary alluded  t-:  Oic  act  of  Congress  of  July  1,  1812,  imposing 
tne  double  duties  upon  imported  Broods,  with  the  addition 
of  10  per  cent,  to  those  duties  if  the  goods  were  imported  in 


1815-10.  j  SECRETARY   DALLAS'   REPORT.  63 

foreign  vessels,  and  the  additional  tunnage  duty  of  $1  50  a 
tun  on  foreign  vessels  ;  which  act  was  about  to  expire  ; 
also  to  several  other  acts  materially  affecting1  the  revenue. 

II.  A  statement  of  the  general  principles  for  reforming  the 
tariff,  including  the  means  of  enforcing  it.  The  tariff  which 
ue  had  reviewed,  the  Secretary  said,  originated  in  1790,  soon 
after  the  Federal  Government  was  organized.  Notwithstand- 
ing its  various  alterations  during  the  long  period  of  American 
neutrality,  it  had  not  been  left  in  a  state-  adapted  to  the 
present  epoch.  The  peace  of  Europe  would  give  a  new  course 
and  character  to  the  commerce  of  the  world.  The  condition 
of  the  United  States  was  essentially  changed  in  population, 
in  wealth,  in  the  employment  of  labor  and  capital,  in  the  de- 
mand of  luxuries  or  of  necessaries  for  consumption,  and  in 
the  native  resources  to  supply  the  demand.  These  consider- 
ations recommended  the  measure  of  revision  and  reform 
which  were  now  contemplated. 

The  three  great  objects  to  be  regarded  in  the  establish- 
ment of  a  general  tariff,  were,  1st.  The  object  of  raising,  by 
duties  on  imports  and  tunnage,  the  proportion  of  public  rev- 
enue which  must  be  drawn  from  that  source.  2d.  The  object 
of  conciliating  the  various  national  interests  arising  from  the 
pursuits  of  agriculture,  manufactures,  trade,  and  navigation. 
3d.  The  object  of  rendering  the  collection  of  the  duties  con- 
venient, equal,  and  certain. 

In  discussing  the  first  of  these  objects,  the  Secretary, 
adopting  the  estimate  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means, 
states  the  annual  revenue  to  be  raised  for  the  service  of  the 
Government,  in  round  numbers,  at  $24,000,000.  As  it  was 
contemplated  to  abolish  the  duties  on  furniture  and  watches, 
domestic  manufactures,  and  distilled  spirits,  and  essentially  to 
diminish  the  direct  taxes,  all  of  which  had  become  necessary 
during  the  war,  it  would  be  necessary  to  raise  by  duties  on 
imports  about  $17,000,000,  which  was  about  the  sum  required 
to  meet  the  annual  demands  of  the  Peace  Establishment ; 
leaving  about  $7,000,000  to  be  annually  raised  by  internal 
duties  and  taxes,  and  from  the  sales  of  public  lands,  for  the 
payment  of  the  public  debt. 

In  relation  to  the  second  of  these  objects,  the  Secretary 
says  :  The  interests  of  agriculture  require  a  free  and  constant 
access  to  a  market  for  its  staples,  arid  a  ready  supply  of  all 
the  articles  of  use  and  consumption  on  reasonable  terms  ; 
but  the  national  interest  may  require  the  establishment  oi  -/. 
domestic  in  preference  to  a  foreign  market,  and  the  employment  of  <k* 


64  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IV. 

mestic  in  preference  to  foreign  labor,  in  furnishing  the  necessary 
supplies.  And  again,  the  interests  of  foreign  commerce 
flourish  most  when  foreign  commerce  is  the  only  medium  to 
convey  the  natural  product  of  a  country  to  a  market,  and  to 
provide  for  all  the  wants  of  the  people  in  the  fabrics  of  the 
manufacturer  and  the  artist ;  but  the  national  interest  may 
require  (contemplating  equally  the  state  of  peace  and  the 
state  of  war)  that  the  people  should  be  as  independent  in  the 
resources  of  their  subsistence,  as  in  the  operations  of  their 
Government.  It  must,  however,  be  the  aim  of  every  just 
system  of  political  economy,  to  secure  the  national  interest 
with  as  little  prejudice  as  possible  to  the  peculiar  interests  of 
agriculture  and  of  commerce. 

Most  Governments  regard  the  establishment  of  domestic 
manufactures  as  a  chief  object  of  public  policy.  The  United 
States  have  so  regarded  it.  But  it  was  during  the  period  of 
the  restrictive  system  and  of  the  war,  that  the  importance  of 
domestic  manufactures  became  conspicuous  to  the  nation,  and 
made  a  lasting  impression  upon  the  mind  of  every  statesman 
and  patriot.  The  weapons  and  munitions  of  war,  the  neces- 
saries of  clothing,  and  the  comforts  of  living,  were  at  first 
but  very  scantily  provided.  Our  market  seemed  for  awhile  to 
be  converted  into  a  state  of  gambling  and  extortion  ;  and  it 
was  not  the  least  of  the  evils  generated  by  the  unequal  state 
of  supply  and  demand,  that  an  illicit  traffic  with  the  enemy, 
by  land  and  by  water,  was  corruptly  prosecuted  from  the 
commencement  to  the  close  of  the  war. 

From  these  circumstances  of  suffering  and  mortification 
have  sprung,  however,  the  means  of  future  safety  and  inde- 
pendence. American  manufactures,  particularly  those  which 
have  been  introduced  during  the  restrictive  system  and  the 
war,  owe  their  existence  exclusively  to  the  capital,  the  skill, 
the  enterprise,  and  the  industry  of  private  citizens.  The  de- 
mands of  the  country,  while  supplies  could  not  be  obtained 
from  abroad,  may  hare  afforded  a  sufficient  inducement  for 
the  investment  of  capital,  and  this  application  of  labor  ;  but 
the  inducement,  in  its  necessary  extent,  must  fail  when  tho 
day  of  competition  returns. 

The  Secretary  divided  the  different  manufactures  into  throe 
classes,  according  to  the  degrees  of  progress  they  had  re- 
spectively made,  or  of  strength  they  had  acquired,  and  the 
degrees  of  protection  they  severally  needed. 

The  means  of  enforcing  the  tariff;  that  ip,  of  rendering 
certain  the  collection  of  the  duties  on  imports,  or,  in  other 


1615-16.]  DEBATE  IN   THE   HOUSE.  £5 

words,  the  means  of  preventing  or  detecting  frauds  upon  the 
revenue,  require  prompt  and  steady  attention.  The  Secre- 
tary mentions  several  ways  of  committing  these  frauds, 
against  which  remedies  were  to  be  provided.  One  of  these 
is  by  smuggling1.  Another  is,  in  the  case  of  duties  ad  valorem, 
by  fraudulent  entries  of  merchandise  upon  fictitious  invoices. 
To  some  readers  this  may  need"  explanation.  By  a  secret  un- 
derstanding between  the  foreign,  manufacturer  or  merchant 
and  his  agent,  or  the  importer  here,  the  goods  are  invoiced 
or  billed  at  lower  than  the  actual  prices  ;  so  that,  when  an  ad 
valorem  duty,  or  per  centage  is  charged  upon  the  "  fictitious" 
price  of  an  article,  the  Government  suffers  a  proportionate 
loss.  Hence  the  propriety  of  charging,  so  far  as  may  be, 
specific  duties,  which  are  duties  of  a  certain,  specified  amount 
upon  articles  ;  as  ten  cents  a  gallon,  one  dollar  a  yard,  three 
cents  a  pound,  &c. 

III.  A  general  tariff  proposed  for  the  consideration  of 
Congress.  Under  this  head,  the  Secretary  gave  schedules  of 
articles  to  be  imported  duty  free,  of  those  to  be  charged  with 
duties  ad  valorem,  and  the  rates  at  which  they  were  to  be  re- 
spectively charged,  and  of  those  to  be  charged  with  specific 
duties,  and  the  amount  of  duty  to  be  charged  upon  them. 

On  the  20th  of  March,  a  bill  to  regulate  the  tariff,  previous- 
ly reported  to  the  House  by  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means,  was  taken  up  and  the  debate  on  the  same  commenced. 
This  bill  differed  somewhat  in  its  details  from  the  report  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  Perhaps  the  duty  on  no  other 
article  was  so  fully  discussed  as  that  on  coarse  cotton  cloths. 
The  Secretary  had  recommended  a  duty  of  33J  per  cent,  on 
cotton  manufactures  of  all  descriptions,  with  the  proviso, 
"  that  all  cotton  cloths,  or  cloths  of  which  cotton  is  the  chief 
material  of  value  (except  nankeens  imported  directly  from 
China,)  the  original  cost  of  which,  at  the  place  whence  im- 
ported, shall  be  less  than  25  cents  per  square  yard,  shall  be 
taken  and  deemed  to  have  cost  25  cents  per  square  yard,  and 
shall  be  charged  with  duty  accordingly.'7  On  woolen  manu- 
factures he  had  recommended  a  duty  of  28  per  cent.  But  the 
bill  provided  a  duty  of  25  per  cent,  on  all  woolen  and  cotton' 
manufactures. 

As  the  debate  on  this  bill  embraced  the  subject  of  protect- 
ing duties  generally,  and  as  it  is  presumed  that  the  views  of 
American  statesmen  upon  this  subject  at  a  comparatively 
early  period  in  the  history  of  the  tariff,  will  be  read  with  in- 
terest, we  present  an  abstract  of  the  proceedings  in  the 
House,  and  of  some  of  the  principal  speeches  on  the  bill 


66  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IV 

Mr.  Strong,  of  Massachusetts,  proposed  to  strike  out  the 
25  per  cent,  on  woolen  and  cotton  manufactures,  and  substi- 
tute 83J  per  cent,  on  cotton  cloths,  and  28  on  woolen,  as 
recommended  by  the  Secretary. 

Mr.  Lowndes,  of  South  Carolina,  Chairman  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  Ways  and  Means,  who  reported  the  bill,  replied  in 
support  of  the  system  proposed  by  the  bill. 

Mr.  Strong,  the  next  day,  withdrew  his  motion  ;    and 

Mr.  Clay,  of  Kentucky,  moved  to  increase  the  duty  on  cot- 
tons to  33|  per  cent.  He  wished  to  try  the  sense  of  the 
House  as  to  the  extent  to  which  it  was  willing  to  protect 
domestic  manufactures — assuming  that  there  was  no  differ- 
ence of  opinion  on  the  propriety  of  such  protection,  but  only 
on  the  degree  to  which  encouragement  should  be  carried, 
lie  advocated  a  thorough  protection  by  ample  duties. 

Mr.  Smith,  of  Maryland,  replied  to  Mr.  C.,  and  argued 
against  the  proposed  increase  of  duty.  He  was  in  favor  of 
protecting  domestic  fabrics,  but  differed  from  Mr.  C.  as  to 
the  extent  of  that  protection. 

Mr.  Lowndes  followed  in  reply  to  Mr.  Clay,  and  defended 
the  bill  as  reported  by  the  Committee.  Mr.  Clay's  motion 
was  lost. 

Mr.  Pickering,  of  Massachusetts,  with  the  view  of  substi- 
tuting an  ad  valorem  duty,  moved  to  strike  out  the  clause  which 
required  cloths  costing  less  than  25  cents  to  be  taken  to  have 
cost  25  cents,  and  to  be  charged  with  duty  accordingly.  This 
motion  gave  rise  to  further  debate,  in  which  the  expediency 
of  protecting  duties  and  their  extent  were  discussed  at  length. 
It  was  supported  by  the  mover,  and  opposed  by  Messrs.  Tay- 
lor, of  New  York,  Lowndes,  and  Strong,  and  negatived — only 
ten  rising  in  its  favor. 

Mr.  Clay  then  renewed  his  motion  in  a  modified  shape,  by 
proposing  to  extend  the  duty  on  cotton  goods  to  30  per  cent, 
and  advocated  the  motion  at  length,  by  replying  to  the  argu- 
ments of  others,  and  entering  largely  into  the  expediency  of 
protecting  our  own  manufactures. 

Mr.  Robertson,  of  Louisiana,  replied  to  Mr.  Clay  and  others, 
and  defended  the  report  of  the  Committee,  as  proposing  am- 
ple protection. 

Mr.  Ingham,  of  Pennsylvania,  followed  in  support  of  Mr. 
Clay's  motion.  Having  been  a  member  of  the  Committee  who 
reported  the  bill,  and  having  had  the  misfortune  to  be  in  the 
minority  when  some  very  important  principles  had  been  de- 
cided by  that  Committee,  he  thought  it  his  duty  to  submit 


1815-16.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  67 

some  of  the  views  that  had  occurred  to  him  in  the  course  of 
the  discussion.  He  did  not  intend  to  discuss  at  large  the 
policy  of  the  Government  in  encouraging  manufactures,  but 
should  endeavor  to  confine  himself  to  a  consideration  of  the 
objections  that  had  been  urged  against  the  motion  before  the 
House,  which  he  understood,  by  the  general  course  of  the 
arguments,  to  be — 

1st.  That  the  amount  of  duty  proposed  was  incompatible 
with  the  fiscal  policy  of  the  Government. 

2d.  That  the  high  duties  on  imported  cotton  and  woolen 
goods  would  injure  the  navigating  interests  of  the  United 
States. 

3d.  That  we  ought  to  confine  our  protection  of  manufac- 
tures to  articles  of  indispensable  necessity  in  time  of  war, 
and  to  articles  of  first  necessity  in  time  of  peace. 

As  respected  the  revenue  question,  Mr.  I.  said,  he  had  not 
expected  to  see  the  discussion  take  this  direction,  because 
the  great  principle  involved  in  the  bill  was  not  a  revenue 
proposition.  Congress  had  already  provided  by  law  for  all 
the  revenues  demanded  by  tho  exigencies  of  the  Government ; 
and  the  only  relation  which  this  bill  could  have  to  the  reve- 
nue was  the  general  limit  of  the  aggregate  of  the  duties  to 
be  imposed.  Its  great,  primary  object  was  to  make  such  a 
modification  of  duties  as  would  give  due  protection  and  sup- 
port to  the  agriculture,  manufactures,  and  commerce  of  the 
country.  The  revenue  is  only  an  incidental  consideration, 
and  ought  to  have  no  influence  in  deciding  the  proposition 
before  the  Committee.  With  a  view  to  these  great  objects, 
is  it  not  the  policy  of  the  Government  to  insure  to  its  agri- 
culture the  advantage  of  a  home  market,  that  can  not  le  affected 
ly  the  caprice  or  vexatious  impositions  of  foreign  nations  ?  The 
principal  raw  materials  used  in  our  manufactories  have  be- 
come great  staples  of  the  country,  the  value  of  which  would 
be  greatly  increased  by  a  demand  for  them  at  home,  as  well 
as  many  other  articles  that  can  not  now  find  a  market  any 
where  else. 

But  the  manufacturing  interests  are  vitally  concerned  in 
this  bill  and  its  details.  It  is  believed  that  not  less  than 
$100,000,000  have  been  invested  in  manufactures  within  the 
last  eight  or  ten  years.  These  furnish,  in  times  of  prosperity, 
profitable  employment  to  many  thousands  of  persons  who 
could  procure  subsistence  in  no  other  way.  They  consume 
vast  quantities  of  the  products  of  the  country,  and  create  a 
demand  for  raw  materials  which  are  imported  from  abroad 


68  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IV. 

to  an  extent  not  easily  believed  by  those  who  have  no  prac- 
tical acquaintance  with  the  facts.  They  supply  substantial 
fabrics  for  the  convenience  and  comfort  of  the  people  which 
they  can  pay  for  with  their  surplus  products,  arid  contribute 
to  the  completion  of  by  their  labor.  The  revenue  question 
must  therefore  be  regarded  as  a  minor  consideration,  even  if 
it  had  been  shown  (which  it  has  not)  that  the  proposed  duty 
would  yield  either  too  much  or  too  little  revenue.  Mr.  I. 
considered  the  bill  as  involving  a  great  principle  of  national 
policy — a  measure  intended  to  increase  their  comfort,  happi 
ness  and  wealth,  and,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  to  in- 
crease and  perpetuate  the  security,  the  peace,  and  especially 
the  independence  of  the  nation. 

It  has  been  said,  that  the  promotion  of  manufactures  would 
injure  our  navigation  and  commerce,  though  he  had  heard  no 
attempt  to  prove  the  allegation.  What,  asked  Mr.  I.,  is  the 
present  condition  of  our  navigation  ?  Totally  excluded  from 
the  British  West  Indies,  and  the  carrying  trade  divided  among 
the  Powers  of  Europe — and  this  must  continue  as  long  as 
they  remain  at  peace.  But  for  the  late  treaty,  we  could  not 
have  carried  our  own  cotton  to  its  principal  market.  Many 
of  the  products  of  the  Middle  States  find  no  market  abroad. 
And  can  our  navigation  be  preserved  by  encouraging  the 
importation  of  cotton  and  woolen  goods,  which,  in  many 
States,  we  have  not  the  means  of  paying  for,  the  balance  of 
trade  being  already  decidedly  against  us  ?  We  must  seek 
for  some  more  certain  employment  for  our  shipping,  that 
can  not  be  affected  by  the  navigation  acts  of  other  nations. 
This  can  only  be  found  in  our  coasting  trade,  which  must  in- 
crease with  our  population,  and  will  be  promoted  by  every 
pursuit  that  increases  the  intercourse  between  the  States  on 
our  maritime  frontier  ;  and  it  is  the  only  trade  exclusively 
our  own.  Manufactures  contribute  to  this  object  ;  particu- 
larly that  of  cotton,  the  raw  material  being  produced  in  one 
extreme,  and  the  fabrics  made  in  the  other  ;  tending  also  to 
bind  the  States  by  the  indissoluble  bonds  of  interest  and  mu- 
tual dependence. 

Another  source  of  employment  for  our  navigation  is  the 
trade  with  South  America,  which  must  essentially  depend 
upon  the  success  of  our  manufactures.  We  shall  require 
from  thence  a  groat  variety  of  raw  materials  ;  and  the  profit 
we  in  <>rking  them  will  enable  us  to  purchase  Euro- 

pean goods  with  wliidi  to  pay  for  them.     Many  articles  that 
wo  make  have  already  found  a  vent  in  that  country  ;  and 


lSli-16.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  69 

thiu  trade  must  increase  with  the  increase  of  our  manufac- 
tures. 

But  it  has  been  said,  the  East  India  trade  will  be  destroyed, 
and  hence  our  navigation  diminished  in  that  branch  of  our 
commerce.  This,  Mr.  I.  said,  had  been  too  strongly  assumed. 
Yet,  if  we  must  either  abandon  our  manufactures  or  the  East 
India  trade,  the  latter  ought  to  give  way,  being  the  less  val- 
uable to  the  nation  ;  for  if,  according  to  the  estimate  of  the 
gentleman  from  Maryland,  forty  ships  are  employed  in  it,  and 
its  continuance  depends  upon  the  importation  of  muslins  for 
domestic  consumption,  we  shall  find  the  trade  rather  an  un- 
profitable one  in  the  present  state  of  the  world.  The  average 
cargo  of  an  India  ship  is  1000  bales  of  1800  yards  each — 
1,800,000  yards  for  each  ship,  and  72,000,000  yards  for  forty 
ships.  These  goods  will  require  18,000,000  pounds  of  cotton, 
which  are  exclusively  of  foreign  growth  ;  and  the  cost  of  the 
goods,  at  9  cents  a  yard,  will  be  $6,480,000,  which  we  can 
not  pay  for  in  the  products  of  the  country.  Without  some 
protection  against  the  introduction  of  these  fabrics,  our  man- 
ufuctures  must  sink.  No  nation  in  Europe  pretends  to  com- 
pete with  the  manufacturers  of  India.  Their  goods  are  often 
so  I  din  the  United  States  for  less  than  they  could  be  woven 
fo'r  here.  Where  cotton  can  be  bought  for  four  pence  a  pound, 
aril  men  work  for  four  pence  a  day,  it  is  in  vain  for  us  to 
think  of  rivaling  them  in  the  cheapness  of  their  fabrics.  The 
protection  asked  for  is  not,  therefore,  an  unreasonable  one. 

Nor  will  this  protection  destroy  the  Indian  trade.  We 
import  from  India  various  other  articles,  silks,  spices,  drugs, 
dyes,  &c.  ;  and  the  China  trade  is  not  affected  by  the  bill. 
Besides,  the  India  goods  can  be  ree"xported  as  well  as  here- 
to lore  ;  and  no  part  of  the  trade  can  be  sensibly  affected  by 
th  i  minimum  price  fixed  for  the  charge  of  duties,*  except 
th  it  which  is  employed  in  importing  coarse  muslins  for  con- 
BU  mption. 

But  the  trade  to  India  is  almost  wholly  a  cash  trade,  and 
can  be  carried  on  only  by  the  profit  of  our  trade  with  other 
countries.  Commerce  between  nations  resembles  traffic  be- 
tween individuals  ;•  and  by  this  assimilation,  many  of  its 

*The  terms,  "  minimum,"  "  minimum  price,"  &c.,  which  frequently  oc- 
cur in  tariff  debates,  are  probably  not  understood  by  every  reader.  The 
word  minimum  signifies  the  least  quantity  assignable  in  a  given  case.  As, 
by  this  bill,  all  cottons,  though  costing  less  than  25  cents,  are  to  be  con- 
sidered as  having  cost  25  cents  a  yard,  that  is  the  least  or  minimum  price  on 
which  the  per  centage  duty  is  to  be  charged. 


•ZQ  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap   IV 

supposed  mysteries  will  vanish.  A  farmer  who  barters  with 
a  merchant,  and  furnishes  him  no  more  products  than  to  pay 
for  the  merchandise  received,  will  have  neither  cash  nor 
credits  with  which  to  make  purchases  from  a  cash  merchant, 
however  cheap  he  may  oifer  his  goods.  We  must  therefore 
trade,  in  the  first  instance,  with  nations  who  will  purchase 
our  products  ;  and  it  is  not  very  material  what  the  price  is, 
provided  it  bears  the  same  relation  to  the  goods  sold  and 
bought.  If  we  derive  a  profit  from  this  trade,  the  balance 
can  be  used  in  purchasing  merchandise  from  India.  But  we 
have  no  such  balance  now  in  our  favor,  nor  is  it  likely  that 
we  shall  have,  until  we  determine  to  pay  up,  and  manufacture 
more  for  ourselves. 

But  it  is  urged  that  our  encouragement  to  domestic  manu- 
factures ought  to  be  confined  to  fabrics  of  necessity  in  time 
of  war,  and  especially  articles  of  the  first  necessity.  Mr.  I. 
said  this  doctrine  had  always  appeared  to  him  as  a  plausible 
theory,  not  founded  in  sound  policy.  Nor  did  he  think  it 
would  bear  the  test  of  reason  and  experience.  As  to  neces- 
saries in  time  of  war,  scarcely  two  persons  would  entirely 
agree  as  to  what  were,  and  what  were  not,  articles  of  neces- 
sity. Almost  everything  we  import  was  esteemed  necessary 
for  our  comfort  ;  but  no  one  pretends  that  we  ought  to  im- 
pose heavy  duties  to  encourage  the  growth  of  products  or  the 
manufacturing  of  fabrics  which  neither  our  climate  nor  the 
habits  of  our  people  had  indicated  our  ability  to  produce. 
For  instance,  it  would  not  avail  us  to  lay  a  heavy  duty  on 
coffee,  when  our  climate  will  not  permit  the  propagation  of 
the  plant  ;  nor  was  it  policy  to  impose  heavy  duties  on  fab- 
rics which  our  people  had  neither  the  ability  nor  disposition 
to  manufacture.  The  rule  laid  down  by  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman then  fails  ;  and  our  policy  ought  not  to  be  governed 
by  it. 

But  there  is  a  principle  that  will  not  fail,  viz.  :  That  we 
ought  to  promote  every  species  of  internal  industry  to  which 
the  inclinations  and  habits  of  the  people,  as  well  as  the  soil, 
climate,  and  general  conditions  of  the  country  appear  to  be 
adapted,  and  especially  those  pursuits*  in  which  experience 
has  shown  that  we  can  succeed.  And  as  to  articles  of  first 
necessity,  the  same  difficulty  exists.  The  great  object  of  the 
Government  ought  to  be  to  promote  the  prosperity  and  hap- 
piness of  the  people.  Its  policy  in  relation  to  manufactures 
must  be  a  great  national  policy,  and  ought  not  to  be  limited 
by  fastidious  calculations  of  sheer  necessity.  This  doctrine 


1815-16.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  71 

of  first  necessity  is  fallacious  :  its  design  seems  to  be  to 
limit  the  manufacturing  industry  of  this  country  by  an  arti- 
ficial distinction  that  has  no  existence  in  reality.  The  only 
rule  that  admits  of  no  exception,  is  that  which  has  been  al- 
ready laid  down.  It  is  the  province,  and  almost  an  essential 
quality  of  despotic  Governments,  to  force  industry  out  of  its 
natural  and  proper  channels,  or  to  cramp  it  by  monopolies. 
But  it  is  the  duty  of  a  Republican  Government,  having  a  due 
regard  to  the  welfare  of  all  the  people,  to  encourage  every 
pursuit  (not  morally  wrong)  in  which  the  conditions  of  the 
country  and  the  inclination  and  capacity  of  the  people  may 
authorize  a  reasonable  hope  of  success. 

After  several  motions  to  amend  the  clause  under  consider- 
ation, without  a  vote  having  been  taken, 

Mr.  Smith,  of  ^laryland,  to  protect  the  great  quantity  o^ 
machinery  erected  in  different  parts  of  the  country  for  rolling 
and  slitting  iron,  moved  to  increase  the  duty  on  imported 
iron  in  sheets,  rods,  and  bolts,  from  150  to  250  cents  per 
hundred  weight. 

The  motion  was  supported  by  Messrs.  Irving  and  Root  of 
New  York,  and  Condict  of  New  Jersey,  and  carried  without 
a  division. 

Mr.  Smith  then  moved  to  increase  the  duty  on  lump  an<J 
loaf  sugar  to  18  cents  a  pound — believing  the  manufactories 
now  established  to  be  fully  able  to  supply  the  whole  country, 
and  the  duty  proposed  by  the  bill  to  be  insufficient  to  protect 
them  against  foreign  competition.  But  Mr.  S.  afterwards 
gave  way  to 

Mr.  Huger,  of  South  Carolina,  who  moved  to  strike  out 
the  proposed  duty  of  4  cents  a  pound  on  brown  sugar,  and 
filling  the  blank  with  2|  cents,  believing  the  latter  suffi- 
cient. 

Mr.  Robertson,  of  Louisiana,  opposed  this  motion  at  length. 
The  State  of  Louisiana,  he  said,  from  its  happy  climate  and 
fertile  soil,  was  competent  to  furnish  the  United  States  with 
all  the  sugar  they  required  ;  but  to  do  it  with  certainty,  and 
within  a  short  time,  some  encouragement  was  indispensable. 
He  opposed  the  reduction  also  because  it  would  strike  off 
about  $900,000  from  the  receipts  of  the  treasury. 

The  motion  was  further  opposed  by  Messrs.  Lowndes  and 
Calhoun  of  South  Carolina,  and  Wilde,  of  Georgia,  and  sup- 
ported by  Messrs.  Sheffey  of  S.  C.,  Milnor  of  Pa.,  Pickering  of 
Mass.,  and  Pitkin  of  Conn. 

The  question  on  striking  out  4  cents  was  carried  :  Ayes. 
62  ;  Noes,  55. 


72  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  (Chap.  IV. 

Mr.  Pitkin  moved  to  fill  the  blank  with  3  cents. 

Mr.  Forsytb,  of  Georgia,  proposed  5  cents.  Sugar,  he  said, 
would  be  cultivated  extensively  in  Georgia,  if  properly  en- 
couraged by  the  Government.  He  protested  against  the 
injustice  of  taxing  the  South  to  support  the  manufactures  of 
the  East,  and  yet  denying  to  the  South  any  security  for  their 
manufactures  in  return. 

The  question  on  5  cents  was  negatived 

A  motion  of  Mr.  Clay  to  fill  the  blank  with  3i  cents,  was 
carried,  64  to  58. 

Mr.  Smith  renewed  the  motion  which  he  had  made  and 
withdrawn,  to  increase  the  duty  on  lump  sugar  to  12  cents 
and  on  loaf  to  15  cents  a  pound,  which  was  carried  : 
Ayes,  56. 

Mr.  Webster  also  renewed  a  motion  which  he  had  on  a  pre- 
vious *day  made  and  withdrawn,  to  strike  'out  the  proposed 
duty  on  imported  cottons,  and  to  substitute  the  following  : 
•'  For  two  years  next  ensuing  the  30th  of  June  next,  a  duty 
of  30  per  centum  ad  valorem  ;  for  two  years  to  commence  at  the 
te«  urination  of  the  two  years  last  aforesaid,  a  duty  of  25  per 
ce'itum  ad  valorem  ;  and  after  the  expiration  of  the  two  years 
lafrt  aforesaid,  a  duty  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem}'1 

Mr.  Clay  moved  to  amend  the  amendment  so  as  to  continue 
tho  30  per  cent,  duty  three  years,  and  reduce  the  second 
pedod  of  two  years  to  one  year.  Now  is  the  time,  said  Mr. 
C.,  for  encouragement.  The  domestic  manufacturer  has  to 
struggle  more  at  the  end  of  a  war  ;  and  at  that  moment  the 
greater  aid  is  necessary  to  support  him  against  foreign  com- 
petition. If  the  amendment  he  offered  prevailed,  four  years 
would  still  reduce  the  duty  to  the  minimum  proposed  by  Mr. 
Webster's  motion,  and  would  give  to  our  own  manufacturers 
an  adequate  protection  at  the  time  of  the  greatest  difficulty. 

After  considerable  further  discussion,  Mr.  Clay's  motion 
was  negatived  :  Ayes,  47  ;  noes,  61  ;  and  then  Mr.  Webster's 
amendment  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Burnside,  of  Pa.,  moved  to  increase  the  duty  on  im- 
ported iron  in  bars,  &c.,  from  75  to  125  cents  per  hundred 
weight.  This  was  opposed  by  several  gentlemen. 

Condict,   of  N.   J.,   moved  to  raise  the  duty  to  150 
cents  per  hundred  weight. 

After  an  extended  discussion  of  the  question,  in  which  it 
was  argued  on  one  side  that  our  iron  factories  required  addi- 
tional encouragement  ;  and  on  the  other,  that  it  was  already 
a  profitable  pursuit,  by  which  large  fortunes  were  made  j 


1S15-1G.J  DEBATES   IN  THE  HOUSE.  73 

that  if  it  could  not  now  do  without  so  high  a  protection,  it 
would  always  require  it  ;  that  the  duty  in  the  bill  was  three 
times  the  former  duty,  under  which  iron  factories  -were 
established  to  great  advantage — the  amendment  was  re- 
jected. 

Mr.  Strong,  of  Mass.,  moved  to  reduce  the  duty  on  imported 
iron  from  75  to  50  cents  per  hundred  weight. 

Mr.  Ross,  of  Pa.,  supported  the  motion.  He  wished  that 
the  ambassadors  from  the  cotton  factories  had  at  once  made 
a  treaty  with  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  which  the 
House  might  have  swallowed,  and  have  left  the  other  manu- 
factories to  themselves,  and  not  be  burdening  the  people  in 
every  possible  way,  under  the  plea  of  protection. 

Mr.  Webster  also  advocated  the  motion,  chiefly  on  the 
ground  of  the  great  navigation  the  iron  importations  em- 
ployed to  the  Baltic. 

It  being  suggested  that  this  motion  had  been  already  de- 
cided several  days  ago,  Mr.  Strong  varied  it  by  moving  37  J 
cents  ;  which  was  negatived  :  Ayes,  45. 

Mr.  Webster  then  moved  45  cents,  which  was  carried  : 
Ayes,  62  ;  noes,  43. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Ingham,  of  Pa.,  the  duty  on  unmanufac- 
tured wool  was  reduced  from  15  to  7J  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 
When,  afterwards,  in  the  House,  the  question  on  agreeing 
to  the  amendment  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  was 
put — 

Mr.  Root,  of  N.  Y.,  opposed  the  amendment,  as  leaving  the 
country  open  to  foreign  competition  in  an  article  the  increase 
of  which  it  was  so  important  to  encourage.  He  hoped  the 
House  would  not  agree  to  the  amendment  reported  by  the 
Committee,  and  demanded  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to  :  Yeas,  73  ;  nays,  42. 

U  may  not  at  first  view  appear  to  every  reader,  why  a 
consistent  friend  of  protection  should  vote  for  a  low  duty  on 
wool,  as  the  more  zealous  protectionists  did  in  this  case,  and 
ha  ye  done  since.  The  reason  is  this  :  If  the  duty  on  the  raw 
material  should  be  equal  to,  or  higher  than  the  duty  on  the 
goods  manufactured,  the  wool  would  be  imported  in  its  man- 
ufactured state  ;  and  the  high  duty  would  encourage  the 
foreign  instead  of  the  domestic  manufacturer,  without  in- 
creasing the  demand  for  the  raw  material.  But  to  insure  a 
market  for  American  wool,  it  is  necessary  to  encourage  the 
home  manufacture  by  a  duty  on  the  raw  material  so  low  as 
to  enable  the  manufacturer  to  obtain  his  supplies  at  a  model 

4 


74  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  fChnp.  IV. 

ate  price.    This  subject  will  be  brought  to  view  more  pro- 
minently in  the  discussions  of  future  tariffs. 

Our  sketch  of  the  proceedings  of  the  House  upon  the  tariff 
of  1816,  necessarily  brief,  and  confined  to  a  very  few  of  the 
numerous  articles  embraced  in  the  bills,  can  not  be  further 
extended,  otherwise  than  to  present  the  views  of  some  of 
the  leading  speakers  on  the  general  question  of  protection. 

Durirg  the  consideration  of  the  duty  on  cotton  cloths, 

Mr.  Telfair,  of  Georgia,  said,  on  the  subject  of  impost  ho 
held  it  a  sound  general  rule,  that  no  other  or  higher  duties 
should  be  laid  than  were  both  necessary  and  proper  for 'the 
purposes  of  revenue.  The  attempt  necessarily  increases  in- 
ducements to  smuggling.  If  the  encouragement  of  manufac- 
tures were  the  object,  it  was,  in  effect,  to  plunge  on  the 
wide  ocean  of  uncertainty,  guided  by  factitious  lights  ema- 
nating from  the  selfishness  alone  of  those  who  tender  them, 
and  which  never  can  be  relied  upon  for  the  purposes  of  wise 
legislation.  He  said  it  was  wise,  in  imposing  duties  for  revenue, 
BO  to  select  objects  that,  while  the  original  intent  is  secured, 
the  interest  of  the  manufacturer  may  be  regarded  as  an  inci- 
dental consideration.  But  the  present  measure,  instead  of 
making  protection  a  secondary  or  collateral,  makes  it  the 
primary  and  essential  cause  of  legislation.  This  had,  in  the 
whole  course  of  the  discussion,  been  placed  in  the  foreground, 
as  the  principal  object  for  which  so  enormous  a  tax  was  to 
be  laid  upon  the  people  of  this  country — a  tax,  the  proceeds 
of  which,  so  far  as  it  meant  protection,  were  never  to  enter 
the  coffers  of  the  nation,  but,  by  a  species  of  magic,  transfer- 
red from  the  hands  of  the  consumer  into  those  of  the  manu- 
Cacturer — paid  by  the  people,  indeed,  but  not  for  the  purposes 
of  Government. 

The  support  of  this  bill,  said  Mr.  T.,  rests  upon  two  consid- 
erations. First,  it  is  urged  that  the  course  of  measures 
pursued  by  Government  for  some  time  previous  to  and  during- 
the  war,  had  the  tendency  of  a  pledge  of  support.  Is  it  to  be 
held  that,  if  the  Government,  in  the  pursuit  of  some  import- 
ant object,  shall  pursue  a  course  of  measures,  the  indirect 
and  undesigned  tendency  of  which  shall  be  to  foster  any 
particular  species  of  industry,  that  thence  it  derives  a  claim 
to  future  protection,  even  at  the  expense  of  all  others  ?  A 
change  from  peace  to  war  necessarily  injures  commerce  and 
agriculture  ;  a  return  of  peace  alike  injures  those  institutions 
•which  grow  up  amid  the  circumstances  of  war.  Is  the  nation, 
after  all  these  changes  and  effects,  to  hold  itself  as  bound  to 


1815-16.]  DEBATES  IN  THE  HOUSE.  75 

compensate  the  losses  of  those  who  may  have  suffered  ?  But 
it  may  be  said  that  the  manufacturing  class  constitutes  so 
small  a  portion  of  the  community,  that,  while  public  policy 
requires  it,  they  may  be  sustained  by  less  injury  to  the  others 
and  less  expense  to  the  Government,  and  therefore  they 
should  be  upheld.  It  is  unsafe  to  legislate  for  particular 
interests.  Did  not  the  interest  of  the  merchant  and  the 
planter  suffer  under  the  causes  which  cherished  the  manufac- 
turer ?  While  the  latter  was  accumulating  wealth,  were  not 
the  former  consuming  their  capital  ?  And  because  they  now 
begin  to  derive  a  profit,  is  it  wise  and  just  in  us  to  rob  them 
of  it  by  increasing  the  cost  of  articles  of  consumption,  merely 
to  contribute  such  a  bounty  to  the  manufacturer  equal  to  his 
accustomed  profits  ? 

And  upon  what  evidence  are  you  about  to  award  the  pro- 
tection asked  for  ?  We  are  told  by  the  persons  interested, 
that,  without  some  aid  from  the  Government,  they  could  not 
sustain  the  shock  of  foreign  importations  which  threatens  to 
overwhelm  them.  They  exhibit  no  particular  statements, 
but  in  general  call  for  duties,  almost  amounting  to  prohibi- 
tion. But  in  your  munificence,  you  are  about  to  allow,  by 
way  of  bounty,  five  per  cent,  more  than  is  required  for  reve- 
nue upon  cottons  and  woolens,  which  is  as  much  as  the  du- 
ties during  the  war,  and  one  hundred  per  cent,  more  than 
those  prior  to  the  war.  In  words,  you  are  called  upon  for 
protection  ;  but  what  are  the  ideas  involved  in  this  phrase  ? 
Why,  that  the  planter  of  this  country,  who  consumes  the  arti- 
cle manufactured,  shall  be  made  to  pay  the  difference  be- 
tween the  wages  of  labor  in  the  factory  and  field,  together 
with  the  difference  of  profit  which  superior  skill  in  the  foreign 
manufacturer  gives  over  the  manufacturer  of  this  country. 
In  one  word,  all  articles  are  made  dear  to  the  consumer, 
whether  of  foreign  or  domestic  fabrication,  merely  that  the 
manufacturer  may  derive  a  profit  upon  his  capital.  Is  the 
agriculture  of  the  country  sufficiently  thriving  to  make  this 
sacrifice  ? 

But  the  second  consideration,  and  that  most  relied  on, 
arises  from  the  policy  of  other  nations,  and  promises  a  more 
permanent  security  to  the  independence  of  this  people.  Im- 
posing, indeed,  is  such  a  ground  of  argument ;  and  if  the  in- 
dependence of  this  nation  either  required  or  could  be  guaran- 
tied by  this  bill,  abhorrent  indeed  would  be  all  opposition  to 
it ;  but  believing  that  the  liberties  of  this  people  and  the  in- 
dependence of  this  Government,  rest  on  a  basis  too  firmly 


76  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chnp.  IV 

laid  in  their  very  genius  and  nature  to  require  such  protec- 
tion, I,  for  one,  will  not  consent  to  the  measure  proposed. 
You  are  about  to  abjure  that  principle  which  was  peculiarly 
your  own,  and  the  offspring-  of  freedom,  of  leaving  industry 
free  to  its  own  pursuit  and  regulation,  and  to  assume  to  your- 
self the  capacity  and  right  of  judging  and  dictating  that  labor 
which  is  wisest  and  best  for  the  people  of  this  country.  The 
extent  of  territory,  the  exuberance  of  our  soil,  the  genius  of 
our  people,  the  principles  of  our  political  institutions,  have 
in  their  combination  decreed,  as  by  a  law  of  nature,  that, 
for  years  to  come,  the  citizens  of  America  shall  obtain  their 
Eubsistence  by  agriculture  and  commerce.  And  we,  in  our 
wisdom,  would  fain  issue  a  counter  order,  to  withdraw  in- 
dustry from  its  natural  and  accustomed  channels,  and,  by 
our  laws,  force  into  a  state  of  prematurity  the  manufacturing 
enterprise  of  this  country. 

But  we  are  told  it  would  be  idle,  weak,  and  absurd  in  us, 
while  all  Europe  is  devising  plans  for  encouraging  manufac- 
tures, to  let  them  stagnate  for  want  of  national  aid.  To  this 
I  answer,  that  such  are  the  profits  and  enjoyments  flowing 
from  labor  in  the  ordinary  pursuits  of  life  with  us,  that  you 
can  not  draw  off  the  citizen,  and  tempt  him  to  a  new  and  less 
active  pursuit,  without  robbing  from  the  national  wealth  a 
considerable  portion  which  is  thrown  in  to  make  up  his  profits. 
Is  not,  then,  the  productive  labor  of  the  country  thereby  di- 
minished ?  Has  not  a  portion  of  it  been  thrown  away,  unless 
some  great  benefit  is  derived  from  this  new  direction  of  in- 
dustry ?  And  is  the  policy  of  other  Governments  to  be  urged 
as  sufficient  justification  ?  It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that 
the  circumstances  of  our  country  are  totally  different  from 
those  of  Europe.  There,  a  crowded  population  makes  it  an 
object  of  real  national  importance  to  discover  means  of  em- 
ployment for  the  many  hands  which  would  otherwise  cumber 
society.  With  us,  the  case  is  widely  different.  Here  every 
hand  would  find  employment  in  tilling  the  earth  ;  and  the 
calls  of  society  are  sufficient,  without  bounty,  to  give  occu- 
pation to  such  as  prefer  other  employments  to  those  of  agri- 
culture. And  every  occupation  which  requires  the  aid  of 
bounty,  contains  within  itself  a  proof  that  it  is  not  produc- 
tive of  national  wealth,  though  it  may  be  of  national  glory. 

Mr.  Gold,  of  N.  Y.,  said  :  The  situation  of  the  district 
winch  I  have  the  honor  to  represent,  the  numerous  petitions 
committed  to  me  by  my  constituents  to  be  presented  to  this 
House  for  relief  under  pressing  embarrassments,  make  it  my 


1815-16.]  DEBATES  IN  THE  HOUSE.  77 

duty  to  address  the  House  on  this  occasion.  It  is  not  a  dis- 
tinct class  of  manufacturers  who  have  petitioned  Congress 
for  relief:  almost  all  classes,  and  principally  the  farmers, 
have  embarked  in  the  manufacture  of  woolen  and  cotton,  and 
now  pray  at  your  hands  the  protection  of  their  interests  put 
in  jeopardy.  Let  not  any  gentleman  be  alarmed  by  the  ap- 
prehension that  a  general  system  of  manufactures  is  about 
to  be  introduced  ;  that  this  country  is  now  to  attempt  the 
manufacture  of  the  almost  endless  list  of  goods  contained  in 
the  importer's  invoice  ;  no,  sir  ;  that  is  not  the  question  ; 
bnt  simply,  will  you  uphold  the  present  manufactures  of 
woolen  and  cotton  against  the  inundation  of  foreign  fabrics, 
cooperating  with  the  unexampled  price  of  cotton,  to  their  de- 
struction? 

The  manufactures  in  question  are,  in  the  language  of  the 
President,  who  has  in  his  message  so  strongly  recommended 
them  to  the  protection  of  Congress,  of  primary  want  or  ne- 
cessity. They  are  indispensable  to  the  community ;  and 
whenever  the  country  shall  be  involved  in  war  with  Great 
Britain,  (from  whom  we  receive  our  supplies,  and  with  whom 
the  relations  of  peace  and  trade  are  greatly  exposed  to  in- 
terruption,) the  same  disgraceful  scenes  of  smuggling,  fraud, 
and  perjuries,  will  be  reacted.  This  event  is  inevitable  ; 
there  is  no  other  resort ;  if  the  country  does  not  furnish  the 
goods,  they  will  be  procured  from  abroad.  It  is  no  light  con- 
sideration, that  our  country  supplies  the  raw  material  of 
both  wool  and  cotton,  while  the  former,  and  about  one-half  of 
the  latter,  which  enters  into  the  manufacture  of  imported 
goods,  are  of  foreign  growth,  and  much  of  the  cotton  of  an 
inferior  quality. 

Arkwright's  machinery  has  produced  a  revolution  in  the 
manufacture  of  cotton.  The  invention  is  so  excellent,  the 
effect  in  saving  labor  so  immense,  that  five  or  six  men  are 
sufficient  for  the  management  of  a  factory  of  two  thousand 
spindles,  spinning  one  hundred  thousand  pounds  of  twist  of 
yarn  yearly.  The  other  hands  are  mere  children,  whose 
labor  is  of  little  use  in  any  other  branch  of  industry.  The 
nation  which  does  not  avail  itself  of  this  machinery,  and  pays 
another  nation  for  fabrics  produced  by  it,  sacrifices,  in  the 
situation  in  which  the  United  States  are  now  placed,  the  en- 
tire value  of  the  abridged  labor  saved  by  the  machinery.  It 
is  a  maxim  of  political  economy  laid  down  by  Sir  James 
Stewart,  that  "  a  nation  ought  to  restrain,  by  duty  on  impor- 
tation, that  which  may  be  produced  at  home,  and  to  manufac- 
ture as  much  as  possible  of  the  raw  material." 


78  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  (Chap.  IV. 

The  same  writer  ways,  that  a  ww  manufacture  can  not  be  es- 
tablished without  encouragement,  without  restraint  on  im- 
portation. Old  establishments  in  possession  of  the  ground, 
in  possession  of  capital,  extended  machinery,  and  the  fruits 
of  experience  in  skill  and  economy,  actuated  by  &  jealousy 
against  rival  establishments  rising  into  competition  which 
never  sleeps,  never  did  cease,  in  any  age  or  country,  to  exert 
their  undivided  force  upon  these  rival  establishments,  and 
for  a  time  to  make  sacrifices  in  the  sale  of  their  goods.  The 
Government  itself  often  lends  itself,  by  bounties  on  exports, 
to  such  unhallowed  designs  upon  the  manufactures'  of  other 
nations,  where  these  nations  have,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
United  States,  been  long  the  great  customers  of  such  Gov- 
ernment and  the  consumers  of  its  fabrics.  [In  proof  of  this 
charge,  Mr.  Gold  referred  to  the  authority  of  Secretary  Ham- 
ilton and  several  British  writers  and  statesmen.  He  also  re- 
ferred to  the  course  of  the  East  India  Company,  who  actually 
reduced  the  prices  of  Iheir  goods  more  than  20  per  cent.,  for 
the  purpose  of  underselling  and  ruining  the  British  manu- 
facturer.] 

This  same  East  India  Company,  said  Mr.  G.,  is  now  raising 
the  same  weapon  against  the  American  manufacturers,  aided 
in  this  by  Great  Britain,  which  that  Company  wielded  against 
the  British  in  1787,  and  the  effect  in  prostrating  them  is  as 
certain.  If  the  British  factories  could  not  stand  against  the 
East  India  importation,  how  can  the  American?  The  pre- 
sent ruinous  state  of  our  cotton  factories,  and  the  fact  that 
many  of  them  are  wholly  suspended,  others  partially,  must 
be  known  to  many  members  of  this  House  who  have  no  con- 
cern in  the  establishments.  He  who  listens  to  and  acts  upon 
suggestions  to  the  contrary,  will  hereafter  experience  deep 
regret. 

I  proceed  to  notice  some  objections  to  encouraging  manu- 
factures. It  is  said  that  "industry  ought  to  be  left  free  to 
its  own  course."  Now,  sir,  this  is  true  or  false,  according  to 
circumstances.  Like  most  maxims,  it  is  to  be  received  with 
qualifications  and  exceptions.  If  other  nations  adopt  tho 
rule,  it  is  generally  true  ;  but  if  a  nation  like  Great  Britain 
shall  swell  her  negotiations  on  manufactures  into  a  system 
— into  volumes — secured  by  severe  penalties,  assuming  to 
manufacture  for  the  world,  and  excluding  the  manufactures 
of  all  the  world  ;  if  this  great  policy  is  pursued  with  a  steady 
eye  from  century  to  century,  by  which  a  wealth  and  power  is 
acquired  that  no  nation  of  so  small  territory  ever  attained, 
does  the  maxim  apply  ? 


1815-1(1.]  DEBATE   IN   THE    HOUSE.  79 

So  severe  was  the  regulation  in  Great  Britain,  that  cloth 
of  foreign  wool  was  by  statute,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  II.,  re- 
quired to  be  burned.  All  attempts  to  transfer  her  artisans 
or  the  instruments  of  manufacture  to  other  nations  are 
severely  punished.  At  times  a  bounty  is  given  on  the  export 
of  goods,  as  well  as  on  the  import  of  the  raw  material.  As 
to  India  cotton  fabrics,  the  admission  for  consumption  is  pro- 
hibited in  France,  Holland,  and  other  European  Governments, 
as  well  as  by  Great  Britain. 

Agriculture  is  certainly  the  great  and  favorite  theater  of 
industry  in  the  United  States,  and,  so  long  as  our  surplus 
products  can  find  a  good  foreign  market,  it  should  be  the  first 
object.  But  how  is  the  fact  ?  With  the  exception  of  a  period 
of  war,  no  such  market  is  found  ;  arid  the  grain  of  our 
country  beyond  consumption  must  rot  in  the  granary.  Lord 
Sheffield,  in  his  American  Commerce,  states,  that  there  never 
was  a  good  market  for  American  flour  and  wheat  for  rnoro 
than  three  or  four  years.  Though  Europe  is  not  recovered 
from  the  shock  of  war,  yet  Great  Britain  is  now  giving  a 
bounty  on  the  export  of  grain.  Where  can  the  United 
States  now  look  for  a  market  for  their  grain  equal  to  that  at 
home  ? 

No  friend  of  his  country  can  look  at  the  enormous  importa- 
tions of  goods  into  the  United  States  the  past  year,  without 
concern.  The  British  accounts  give  30  millions  sterling, 
[above  $130,000,000,]  as  the  amount  of  her  export  of  goods 
to  the  United  States,  while  our  whole  export  to  Great  Britain 
is  21  millions  only.  Is  it  possible  to  see  such  a  course  of 
trade  in  any  other  light  than  as  most  ruinous  to  the  country  ? 
"  If  the  balance  of  trade  be  against  a  nation,  it  is  her  inter- 
est to  put  a  stop  to  it,"  is  the  language  of  Sir  James  Stewart. 
The  United  States  can  not  continue  this  course  of  trade 

half  a  dozen  years  without  ruinous  consequences 

The  balance  against  the  United  States  was  reimbursed  by 
the  favorable  trade  with  the  West  Indies  and  other  ports, 
which  are  now  in  a  great  degree  closed  against  us.  The 
British  Government  appears  at  length  to  have  adopted  a  new 
course  of  policy,  by  which  the  United  States  are  to  be  ex 
eluded  from  the  commerce  of  the  British  West  Indies  ;  and 
resort  is  to  be  had  to  the  Canadas  and  New  Brunswick  for 
supplies  for  the  West  Indies.  Hence,  very  heavy  duties  are 
laid  on  the  admission  of  cargoes  in  American  ships  ;  and  our 
commerce  is  to  be  hedged  in  on  every  side. 

The  importation  of  cotton  goods  into  the  United  States 


80  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IV 

from  the  British  possessions,  has  been  much  greater  than  is 
generally  supposed.  In  each  of  the  years  1806  and  1807,  it 
was  from  England  $19,000,000  ;  from  Scotland  and  Calcutta, 
about  $5,000,000.  During  the  last  year,  the  importation  must 
have  been  nearly  double  this  amount. 

It  is  further  objected,  that  our  manufacturers  will  extort 
extravagant  prices  ;  and  the  prices  during  the  last  year  are 
referred  to  in  support  of  the  objection.  Is  this  charge  against 
the  manufacturers  just  ?  Does  not  every  member  of  this 
Committee  know  that  the  charge  applies  equally  against  all 
classes  during  the  war  ?  Did  not  the  merchant  who  had 
cloths  on  hand  profit  equally  by  the  times  ?  DM  he  riot  im- 
pose 100  per  cent,  on  his  peace  importation  ?  Was  not  the 
settled  order  of  things  unhinged  by  the  war  ?  and  did  not  all 
classes  exact  the  most  extravagant  prices  ?  If  the  manufac- 
ture of  cottons  were  a  mystery,  confined  to  a  few,  there  might 
be  foundation  for  the  objection  ;  but  the  fact  is,  the  manufac- 
ture is  simple — machine  makers  are  greatly  multiplied — and 
the  manufacture  is  now  actually  spread  over  more  than  half 
the  United  States.  It  began  in  the  East,  has  spread  to  the 
West,  and  has  now  actually  passed  the  mountains.  Instead 
of  concert  to  raise  prices,  competition  and  the  spirit  of  un- 
derselling prevail  to  such  an  extent,  that  sales  are  often  made 
without  a  profit. 

Justice  to  different  portions  of  the  Union,  and  the  harmony 
of  the  whole,  require  the  encouragement  of  manufactures. 
While  the  South  has,  from  the  export  of  her  cotton  and  to- 
bacco alone,  received  about  30  millions  the  last  year,  the 
Northern  and  Middle  States,  having  no  such  great  staples, 
must  of  necessity  turn  their  attention  to  manufacturing,  or 
become  greatly  impoverished,  to  the  injury  of  the  whole. 
The  reliriquishment  of  the  port  duties  by  the  Northern  and 
Middle  States,  to  the  amount  of  nearly  three-fourths  of  the 
customs,  by  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  creates  an 
equitable  claim  to  such  an  adjustment  of  the  duties,  as  shall 
j'nv«r  and  protect  the  interest  of  those  States. 

The  cotton  section  having  been  amended  so  as  to  make 
the  duty  25  per  cent,  for  three  years,  and  20  per  cent,  there- 
after,— 

Mr.  Randolph,  the  next  day,  moved  to  strike  out  so  much 
of  the  proviso  of  this  second  section  as  fixes  the  minimum 
price  of  cotton  goods  (except  nankeens  direct  from  China) 
at  25  cents  per  square  yard.  II«  was  willing  to  encourage 
as  far  as  was  proper,  those  manufactures  of  cloths  conducted 


1815-16.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  81 

in  the  families  of  our  citizens,  and  argued  against  the  pro- 
priety of  promoting  the  manufacturing  establishments  to  the 
extent  and  in  the  manner  proposed  by  the  bill,  and  against 
laying  up  8,000  tuns  of  shipping  now  employed  in  the  East 
India  trade,  and  levying  an  immense  tax  on  one  portion  of 
the  community  to  put  money  into  the  pockets  of  another. 

Mr.  Calhoun,  of  S.  C.,  said  :  The  debate  heretofore  on  this 
subject  has  been  on  the  degree  of  protection  which  ought  to 
be  afforded  to  our  cotton  and  woolen  manufactures  ;  all  pro- 
fessing to  be  friendly  to  those  infant  establishments,  and  to 
be  willing  to  extend  to  them  adequate  encouragement.  The 
present  motion  assumes  a  new  aspect.  It  is  introduced  pro- 
fessedly on  the  ground  that  manufactures  ought  not  to  re- 
ceive any  encouragement,  and  will,  in  its  operation,  leave  our 
cotton  establishments  exposed  to  the  competition  of  the  cot- 
tori  goods  of  the  East  Indies,  which,  it  is  acknowledged  on  all 
sides,  they  arc  not-capable  of  meeting  with  success,  without 
the  proviso  proposed  to  be  stricken  out  by  the  motion  now 
under  discussion.  Until  the  debate  assumed  this  new  form, 
he  had  determined  to  be  silent.  But  on  a  subject  of  such 
vital  importance,  touching,  as  it  does,  the  security  and  per- 
manent prosperity  of  our  country,  he  hoped  the  House  would 
indulge  him  in  a  few  observations.  He  regretted  much  his 
want  of  preparation  ;  but  whatever  his  arguments  might 
want  on  that  account  in  weight,  he  hoped  might  be  made  up 
in  the  disinterestedness  of  his  situation.  Coming,  as  he  did, 
from  the  South,  having  in  common  with  his  constituents,  no 
interest  but  in  the  cultivation  of  the  soil,  in  selling  its  pro- 
ducts high,  and  in  buying  cheap  the  wants  and  conveniences 
of  life,  no  motives  could  be  attributed  to  him  but  such  as 
were  disinterested. 

The  security  of  a  country  mainly  depends  on  its  spirit  and 
its  means,  and  the  latter  principally  on  its-  moneyed  resources. 
He  took  it  for  granted  that  it  was  the  duty  of  this  body  to 
adopt  those  measures  of  prudent  foresight  wjiich  the  event  of 
war  made  necessary.  We  can  not,  he  presumed,  be  indiffer- 
ent to  dangers  from  abroad,  unless,  indeed,  the  House  is  pre- 
pared to  indulge  in  the  phantom  of  eternal  peace,  which 

seemed  to  possess  the  dream  of  some  of  its  members 

What,  then,  let  us  consider,  constitute  the  resources  of  this 
country  ?  and  what  are  the  effects  of  war  on  them  ?  Com- 
merce and  agriculture,  till  lately,  almost  the  only,  still  consti- 
tute the  principal  sources  of  our  wealth.  So  long  as  these 
remain  uninterrupted,  the  country  prospers  ;  but  war,  as  we 

4*  * 


82  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IV. 

arc  now  circumstanced,  is  destructive  to  both.  They  both 
depend  on  foreign  markets  ;  and  our  country  is  placed,  as  it 
regards  them,  in  a  situation  strictly  insular  ;  a  wide  ocean 
rolls  between.  Our  commerce  neither  is,  nor  can  be  pro- 
tected by  the  present  means  of  the  country.  What,  then, 
are  the  effects  of  a  war  with  a  maritime  power — with  Eng- 
land ?  Our  commerce  annihilated,  spreading  individual  mis- 
cry,  and  producing  national  poverty  ;  our  agriculture  cut  off 
from  its  accustomed  markets,  the  surplus  product  of  the 
farmer  perishes  on  his  hands  ;  and  he  ceases  to  produce,  be- 
cause he  cannot  sell.  His  resources  are  dried  up,  while  his 
expenses  are  greatly  increased  ;  as  all  manufactured  articles, 
the  necessaries  as  well  as  the  conveniences  of  life,  rise  to  an 
extravagant  price. 

The  recent  war  fell  with  peculiar  pressure  upon  the  grow- 
ers of  cotton  and  tobacco,  and  other  great  staples  of  the 
country  ;  and  the  same  state  of  things  will  recur  in  the  event 
of  another,  unless  prevented  by  the  foresight  of  this  body. 
If  the  mere  statement  of  facts  did  not  carry  conviction  to 
any  mind,  additional  arguments  might  be  drawn  from  the 
general  nature  of  wealth.  Neither  agriculture,  manufactures, 
nor  commerce,  taken  separately,  is  the  cause  of  wealth  ;  it 
flows  from  the  three  combined,  and  can  not  exist  without 
each.  The  wealth  of  any  single  nation,  or  any  individual,  it 
is  true,  may  not  immediately  depend  on  the  three  ;  but  such 
wealth  always  presupposes  their  existence.  He  viewed  the 
words  in  their  most  enlarged  sense.  Without  commerce,  in- 
dustry would  have  no  stimulus  ;  without  manufactures,  it 
would  be  without  the  means  of  production  ;  and  without  ag- 
riculture, neither  of  the  others  can  subsist.  When  separated 
entirely  and  permanently,  they  perish.  War  in  this  country 
produces,  to  a  great  extent,  that  effect ;  and  hence  the  great 
embarrassments  which  follow  in  its  train. 

The  failure  of  the  wealth  and  resources  of  the  nation  ne- 
cessarily involves  the  ruin  of  its  finances  and  its  currency. 
It  is  admitted  by  the  most  strenuous  advocates  on  the  other 
side,  that  no  country  ought  to  bo  dependent  on  another  for 
its  means  of  defense  ;  that  at  least  our  musket  and  bayonet, 
our  cannon  and  ball,  ought  to  be  of  domestic  manufacture. 
But  what  is  more  necessary  to  the  defense  of  a  country  than 
its  currency  and  finance  ?  Circumstanced  as  our  country  is, 
can  these  stand  the  shock  of  war?  liehoM  the  effect  of  the 
late  war  on  them  !  When  our  nuumiaciiires  are  grown  to  a 
certain  perfection,  as  they  soon  will  under  the  fostering  care 


1815-16.  j  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  83 

of  the  Government,  we  will  no  longer  experience  these  evils. 
The  farmer  will  find  a  ready  market  for  his  surplus  produce  ; 
and,  what  is  almost  of  equal  consequence,  a  certain  and  cheap 
supply  of  all  his  wants.  His  prosperity  will  diffuse  itself  to 
every  class  of  the  community  ;  and  instead  of  that  languor  of 
industry,  and  individual  distress  now  incident  to  a  state  of 
war  and  suspended  commerce,  the  wealth  and  vigor  of  the 
community  will  not  be  materially  impaired.  The  arm  of 
Government  will  be  nerved,  and  taxes  in  the  hour  or'  danger, 
when  essential  to  the  independence  of  the  nation,  may  be 
greatly  increased.  Loans,  so  uncertain  and  hazardous,  may 
be  less  relied  on.  Thus  situated,  the  storm  may  beat  with- 
out, but  within  all  will  be  quiet  and  safe.  To  give  perfec- 
tion to  this  state  of  things,  it  will  be  necessary  to  add,  as 
soon  as  possible,  a  system  of  internal  improvements,  and  at 
least  such  an  extension  of  our  navy  as  will  prevent  the  cut- 
ting off  our  coasting  trade.  The  advantage  of  each  is  so 
striking  as  not  to  require  illustration,  especially  after  the  ex- 
perience of  the  last  war. 

It  is  certainly  a  great  political  evil,  incident  to  the  charac- 
ter of  the  industry  of  this  country,  that,  however  prosperous 
our  situation  when  at  peace,  with  uninterrupted  commerce, 
and  nothing  then  could  exceed  it,  the  moment  that  we  were 
involved  in  war,  the  whole  is  reversed.  When  resources  are 
most  needed  ;  when  indispensable  to  maintain  the  honor,  yes, 
the  very  existence  of  the  nation,  then  they  desert  us.  Our 
currency  is  also  sure  to  experience  the  shock,  and  becomes 
so  deranged  as  to  prevent  us  from  calling,  out  fairly  what- 
ever of  means  is  left  to  the  country.  The  result  of  a  war  in 
the  present  state  of  our  naval  power,  is  the  blockade  of  our 
seacoast,  and  consequent  destruction  of  our  trade.  The  wants 
and  habits  of  the  country,  founded  on  the  use  of  foreign  arti- 
cles, must  be  gratified  ;  importation  to  a  certain  extent  con- 
tinues, through  the  policy  of  the  enemy  or  unlawful  traffic  ; 
the  exportation  of  our  bulky  articles  is  prevented,  too  ;  the 
specie  of  the  country  is  drawn  to  pay  the  balance  perpetually 
accumulating  against  us  ;  and  the  final  result  is  a  total  de- 
rangement of  our  currency. 

To  this  distressing  state  of  things,  Mr.  C.  said,  there  were 
two  remedies,  and  only  two  ;  one  in  our  power  immediately, 
the  other  requiring  much  time  and  exertion  ;  but  both  consti- 
tuting the  essential  policy  of  this  country  ;  he  meant  the 
navy  and  domestic  manufactures.  By  the  former,  we  could 
open  the  way  to  our  markets  ;  by  the  latter  we  bring1  them 


84  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IV. 

from  beyond  the  ocean,  and  naturalize  them.  As  we  had  not 
the  means  of  attaining  an  immediate  naval  ascendancy,  it  be- 
came our  duty  to  resort,  at  least  as  far  as  proposed,  to  the 
only  remaining  remedy. 

But  it  has  been  objected,  that  the  country  is  not  prepared, 
and  that  our  premature  exertion  would  bring  distress  on  it, 
without  effecting  the  intended  object.  He  could  not  for  a 
moment  yield  to  this  assertion  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  firmly  be- 
lieved that  the  country  was  prepared,  even  to  maturity,  for 
the  introduction  of  manufactures.  We  have,  said  he,  abun- 
dance of  resources,  and  they  naturally  tend  in  that  direction. 
A  prosperous  commerce  has  poured  an  immense  amount  of 
commercial  capital  into  this  country.  That  state  of  the 
world  which  transferred  it  to  this  count™*,  and  gave  it  active 
employment  in  commerce,  has  passed  away,  never  to  return. 
Where  shall  we  now  find  employment  for  our  prodigious 
amount  of  tunnage  ?  where  find  markets  for  our  numerous 
and  abundant  products  ?  This  great  body  of  active  capital 
must  find  a  new  direction.  What  channel  can  it  take  but 
that  of  manufactures  ?  It  will  introduce  a  new  era  in  our 
affairs,  and  ought  to  be  countenanced  by  the  Government. 
We  have  already  surmounted  the  greatest  difficulty.  The 
cotton  and  woolen  manufactures  are  already  introduced  to  a 
great  extent,  freeing  us  from  the  hazards,  and  in  a  great 
measure  from  the  sacrifices  experienced  in  giving  capital  a 
new  direction.  The  restrictive  measures  and  the  war,  though 
not  intended  for  that  purpose,  have  turned  a  large  amount  of 
capital  to  this  new  branch  of  industry.  Where,  then,  it  may 
be  asked,  is  the  necessity  of  affording  it  protection  ?  It  is 
to  put  them  beyond  the  reach  of  contingency.  Besides,  capi- 
tal is  not  yet,  and  can  not,  for  some  time,  be  adjusted  to  the 
new  state  of  things.  There  is,  in  fact,  from  the  operation  of 
temporary  causes,  a  great  pressure  on  these  establishment  s. 
They  had  extended  so  rapidly  during  the  late  war,  that  many, 
he  feared,  had  not  the  requisite  surplus  capital  or  skill  to 
meet  the  present  crisis. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  manufacturers  arc  the  fruitful 
cause  of  pauperism  ;  and  England  has  been  referred  to  as 
furnishing  evidence  of  its  truth.  Mr.  C.  said,  for  his  part,  he 
could  perceive  no  such  tendency  in  them,  but  the  exact  con- 
trary, as  they  furnished  new  stimulus  and  means  of  subsist- 
ence to  the  laboring  classes.  \V«-  < night  not  to  look  to  the 
cotton  and  wooTon  establishment*  of  Groat  Britain  for  the 
prodigious  numbers  of  poor  with  which  her  populatioa  was 


1815-16 J  DEBATE  IX  THE   HOUSE.  8f> 

disgraced.  Causes  much  more  efficient  exist.  Her  poor  laws, 
and  statutes  regulating  the  price  of  labor,  with  heavy  taxes, 
are  the  real  causes.  If  the  mere  fact  that  England  manufac- 
tured more  than  any  other  country  explained  the  cause  of  her 
having  more  beggars,  it  is  just  as  reasonably  to  refer  her 
courage,  spirit,  and  all  her  masculine  virtues,  in  which  she 
excels  all  other  nations,  with  a  single  exception — our  own — 
in  which  we  might  without  vanity  challenge  a  preeminence. 

Another  objection  had  been  made,  which  he  must  acknowl- 
edge was  better  founded,  that  capital  employed  in  manufac- 
turing produced  a  greater  dependence  on  the  part  of  the  em- 
ployed, than  in   commerce,  navigation,  or   agriculture.     But 
he  did  not  think  it  a  decisive  objection   to  the  system,  as  it 
had  incidental    political    advantages    which,  in  his    opinion, 
more  than  counterpoised  it.     It  produced  an  interest  strictly 
American — -as  much  so  as  agriculture  ;    in  which   it  had  the 
decided  advantage  of  commerce  or  navigation.     The  country 
•will  from  this  derive  much  advantage.     Again,  it  is  calcu- 
lated to  bind  together  more  closely  our  widely-spread  Repub- 
lic.    It  would  make  the  parts  adhere  more  closely  ;   it  would 
form  a  new  and  most  powerful  cement,  far  outweighing  any 
political  objections  that  might  be  urged  against  the  system. 
The  liberty  and  the  union  of  the  country  were  .inseparably 
united.     As  the  destruction  of  the  latter  would  certainly  in- 
volve the  former,  so  its   maintenance  would  with  equal  cer- 
tainty preserve  it.     He  did  not  speak  lightly.     He  had  often 
and  long  revolved  it  in  his  mind,  and  had  critically  examined 
into  the  causes  that  destroyed   the   liberty  of  other  States. 
There  are  none  that  apply  to  us,  or  apply  with   a  force  to 
alarm.     The  basis  of  our  Republic  is  too  broad,  and  its  struc- 
ture too  strong,  to  be  shaken  by  them.     Its  extension  and  or- 
ganization will  be  found  to  afford  effectual   security  against 
their  operation.     But  let  it  be  deeply  impressed  on  the  hear, 
of  this  House    and  the    country,  that,  while   they  guardeo 
against  the  old — they  exposed  us  to  a  new  and  terrible  danger 
— disunion.     This  single  word  comprehends   almost  the  SUIT 
of  our  political  dangers  ;  and  against  it  we  ought  to  be  per 
petually  guarded. 

Mr.  Calhoun  was  replied  to  by  Messrs.  Cuthbert,  of  Georgia 
Randolph,  of  Va.,  and  Gaston,  of  N.  C. 

Mr.  Newrton,  of  Va.,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Com 
merce  and  Manufactures,  in  a  speech  of  about  two  hours,  ad 
vocated  the  bill,  entering  into  a  full  discussion  of  the  genera) 
question  of  promoting  domestic  fabrics. 


86  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IV 

Mr.  Hale,  of  N.  H.,  moved  to  modify  Mr.  Randolph's  motion, 
by  reducing  the  minimum  price  to  15  cents  a  square  yard. 
The  motion  was  negatived  :  Ayes,  66  ;  noes.  72.  The  ques- 
tion recurred  on  Mr.  Randolph's  motion  to  strike  out  the 
minimum  price  altogether  ;  and,  after  some  further  debate, 
the  motion  was  withdrawn  by  Mr.  Randolph. 

A  few  da}'s  afterward,  Mr.  Randolph  moved  the  postpone- 
ment of  the  bill  to  December  next,  expressing  a  belief  that 
the  bill  had  not  been  maturely  prepared  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury. 

Mr.  Smith,  of  Md.,  opposed  the  motion.  Jf  the  tariff  were 
not  passed,  the  commercial  community  would  have  to  look 
to  the  next  session  without  knowing  how  to  shape  their  con- 
duct or  form  their  calculations,  uncertain  of  the  policy  which 
might  then  be  adopted. 

Mr.  Lowndes,  of  S.  C.,  also  opposed  the  postponement.  The 
Secretary  had  not  acted  prematurely  ;  he  had  long  ago  taken 
measures  to  obtain  all  possible  light  on  the  subject.  Mr.  L. 
admitted  that  he  did  not  approve  every  feature  of  the  bill. 
In  a  system  so  extensive,  there  must  be  particular  parts  on 
which  members  could  not  agree  ;  but  as  a  whole,  he  had  no 
doubt  it  would  be  beneficial  to  the  revenue,  and  promote  the 
general  interests  of  the  country. 

Mr.  Calhoun  would  not  enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  mo- 
tion ;  but  wished  merely  to  reply  to  the  insinuation  (by  Mr. 
Randolph)  of  a  mysterious  connection  between  this  bill  and 
that  to  establish  the  bank.  He  denied  any  improper  or  un- 
fair understanding,  and  could  challenge  the  House  to  sup- 
port the  charge.  In  fact,  said  Mr.  C.,  the  most  zealous  friends 
of  the  bank  were  generally  unfriendly  to  this  tariff  ;  and  the 
warmest  friends  of  either  could  not  be  found  on  the  same 
6  Lie. 

The  question  on  the  postponement  was  lost :  Yeas,  47  ; 
noys,  95. 

The  question  recurring  on  the  passage  of  the  bill, 

Mr.  Randolph  spoke  three  hours  against  the  bill,  and  gen- 
enlly  against  the  policy  of  encouraging  manufacturing  es- 
tablishments at  all,  especially  against  affording  a  high 
bounty  by  taxing  the  community. 

Messrs.  Wright,  of  Md.,  and  f  elfair,  of  Ga.,  followed  on  the 
same  si.}--  :  when  the  question  w%s  taken  on  the  passage  of 
the  bill,  and  decided  in  the  affirmative  :  Yeas,  88  ;  nays, 

54  ;    ,'iK  !'<>llnv. 

Xftc  jr<>ir>f*hirf  •   Y?R.  1  -.    nay?.  3.      M.f**tichu*cKg :   Yeas,  7  :    nays,  4. 


1S15-16.J  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE  87 

Mode  Island :  Yeas,  2.  Connecticut :  Yeas,  2  ;  nays,  2.  t'ermont  :  Yeas, 
5;  nay,  1.  New  York:  Yeas,  20  ;  nays,  2.  New  Jersey  :  Yeas,  5.  Penn* 
sylvania :  Yeas,  17;  nays,  8.  Maryland:  Yeas:  2  ;  nays.  5.  Virginia: 
Yeas,  7;  nays,  12.  North  Carolina:  Nays,  11.  South  Carolina:  Yeas,  4  ; 
nays,  4.  Georgia:  Yeas,  8;  nays.  8.  Kentucky  :  Yeas,  6;  nay,  1.  Ten" 
nessee :  Yeas,  8;  nays,  2.  Ohio:  Yeas.  4.  Louisiana:  Nay,  1. 

In  the  Senate,  the  bill,  having  been  somewhat  amended, 
was  passed,  15  to  11,  as  follows  : 

New  Hampshire:  Nays,  2.  Massachusetts:  Nay,  1.  Rhode  Island: 
Yea,  1.  Connecticut:  Nay,  1.  Vermont:  Nay,  1.  .AYztf  York:  Yea,  1; 
nay,  1.  New  Jersey  :  Yea,  1 ;  nay,  1.  Pennsylvania:  Yeas,  2.  Delaware: 
Nays,  2.  Maryland:  Nay,  1.  Virginia  :  Yeas.  2.  North  Carolina  :  Yea,  1 ; 
nay,  1.  South  Carolina:  Yea,  1.  Georgia:  Yea,  1.  Kentucky :  Yea,  1. 
Tennessee:  Yea,  1.  07*  w :  Yea,  1.  Louisiana:  Yeas,  2. 

[For  the  rates  of  duty  imposed  by  this  act,  see  Table  of 
Duties,  near  the  end  of  the  volume.] 

On  the  list  of  articles  free  of  duty,  among'  others  were  the 
following  :  Philosophical  apparatus,  cabinets  of  coins,  gems, 
medals,  and  other  collections  of  antiquities,  statuary,  paint- 
ings, &c.,  imported  for  the  use  of  any  philosophical  or  literary 
society,  or  for  the  encouragement  of  the  fine  arts,  or  for  the 
use  of  any  seminary  ;  specimens  in  natural  history  ;  cork, 
unmanufactured  ;  animals  imported  for  breed  ;  burr  stones, 
unwrought  ;  gold  and  silver  coin  and  bullion  ;  certain  dye 
woods  ;  copper  and  brass  suited  to  the  sheathing  of  ships, 
«fec.,  &c. 

To  the  duties  imposed  by  the  act  upon  the  goods  imported, 
10  per  cent,  was  to  be  added  if  imported  in  foreign  vessels, 
where  a  specific  discrimination  had  not  already  been  made. 
The  act  also  provided,  that,  on  certain  articles  no  drawback 
of  duties  was  to  be  allowed  on  exportation  of  such  articles. 
Nor  was  a  drawback  to  be  allowed  in  the  case  of  goods  im- 
ported in  foreign  vessels  from  any  foreign  place  to  and  with 
which  our  vessels  were  not  permitted  to  go  or  trade. 

In  1817,  an  act  was  passed  to  continue,  on  foreign  vessels, 
the  tunnage  duty  of  $2  a  tun  to  which  it  had  been  previously 
raised,  except  such  vessels  as  came  from  ports  or  places  to 
and  with  which  our  vessels  were  not  permitted  to  enter  and 
trade  :  these  were  to  be  subject  only  to  the  duties  originally 
levied  by  the  act  of  17 90. 

It  will  be  recollected,  that,  by  the  tariff  act  of  1816,  25  per 
cent,  duty  on  cotton  cloths  and  thread  was  to  be  charged  for 
three  years,  and  20  per  cent,  thereafter.  By  an  act  of  April 
20,  1818,  the  25  per  cent,  duty  was  to  be  continued  until  the 
30th  of  June,  1826. 


88  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IV 

Also  an  act  of  the  same  date  was  passed  to  increase  tho 
duties  on  certain  manufactured  articles  imported  into  the 
United  States  ;  among  which  were  the  following  :  Manufac- 
tures of  copper,  silver  plated  saddlery,  &c.,  which,  by  the 
tariff  of  1816,  were  charged  20  per  cent.,  were  raised  to  25 
per  cent.  Cut  glass,  from  20  per  cent.,  was  raised  to  30. 

At  the  same  session,  several  petitions  were  received  from 
inhabitants  of  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania,  praying  for  ad- 
ditional duties  on  the  various  kinds  of  iron  imported.  An 
act  was  accordingly  passed,  increasing  the  duties  on  the  fol- 
lowing articles  :  Iron  in  pigs  was  made  subject  to  a  duty  of 
50  cents  per  cwt.,  [112  Ibs.  ;]  iron  castings,  75  cents  per  cwt. ; 
iron  in  bars  and  bolts  manufactured  without  rolling,  75  cents 
per  cwt.,  (formerly  45  cents.)  Anchors,  from  $1  50  per  cwt, 
were  raised  to  2  cents  a  pound  ;  alum,  from  1  cent,  to  2  cents 
a  pound. 


1619-1820.)  PETITIONS  TO  CONGRESS.  89 


CHAPTER    V. 

Attempt  to  revise  the  tariff  of  1816.      Petitions.      Bills  reported.      Debate  on  the 
bill.    Passed  by  the  House.    Defeated  in  the  Senate  by  postponement. 

THE  tariff  of  1816  proved  less  favorable  to  the  manufactur- 
ing interest  than  had  been  generally  anticipated.  Therefore, 
at  the  session  of  1819-1820,  numerous  memorials,  from  a 
number  of  States,  were  again  presented  to  Congress,  asking 
for  the  further  protection  of  that  interest.  Among  these  me- 
morials was  one  from  a  convention  of  "the  friends  of  national 
industry,  assembled  in  the  city  of  New  York,  to  take  into 
consideration  the  prostrate  condition  of  our  manufactures, 
and  to  petition  Congress  for  their  relief,  composed  of  dele- 
gates from  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  arid 
Ohio  ;"  and  another  from  the  American  Society  of  the  city  of 
New  York,  for  the  encouragement  of  domestic  manufactures. 
The  following  are  some  of  the  views  arid  facts  presented  by 
the  memorialists  : 

The  people  of  this  country,  they  said,  after  having  enjoyed 
the  benefit  of  an  over-proportion  of  the  trade  of  the  world, 
found  themselves  in  a  state  of  great  embarrassment.  Our 
commerce  was  greatly  prostrated  ;  our  shipping  had  sunk  in 
value  to  one-half  of  its  original  cost ;  real  estate  was  depre- 
ciated ;  merchants,  manufacturers,  and  farmers,  were  reduced 
to  bankruptcy  ;  many  mechanics  and  artists  were  unemploy- 
ed ;  and  our  great  staples  were  so  reduced  in  price  as  most 
seriously  to  affect  the  interests  of  the  agriculturists,  and  to 
diminish  the  means  of  paying  for  our  importations.  We 
were  deeply  indebted  to  foreign  nations,  notwithstanding  we 
had  transmitted  to  them  as  much  of  our  surplus  productions 
as  they  furnished  us  a  market  for,  and  a  large  amount  of  our 
Government  and  bank  stock,  which  subjected  us  to  an 
oppressive  annual  tax  for  interest,  probably  equal  to  the 
amount  of  the  civil  expenses  of  our  Government,  which  adds 
to  the  impoverishing  drain  of  our  specie.  Our  cities  and  vil- 
lages were  filled  with  the  manufactured  productions  of  other 
nations,  by  which  we  had  been  ruinously  drained  of  our 
wealth. 


99  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  V. 

The  petitioners  refer  to  Portugal,  Russia,  Austria,  England, 
and  France,  as  furnishing  examples  illustrating  the  beneficial 
effects  of  the  encouragement  of  domestic  manufactures  by 
bounties  and  duties,  amounting,  in  some  cases,  even  to  the 
prohibition  of  rival  articles  of  other  nations.  And,  on  the 
other  hand,  they  refer  to  Spain  to  show  the  effects  of  the 
opposite  policy.  She  had,  for  centuries,  with  those  bound- 
less resources  which  were  lavished  on  her  in  vain,  nourished 
the  industry  of  other  nations,  and  often,  with  those  treasures, 
squandered  for  their  manufactures,  fed  the  armies  that  cov- 
ered her  fields  with  desolation,  and  shed  disgrace  on  her 
arms.  The  mass  of  her  subjects,  unprotected  in  their  indus- 
try, were  in  a  state  of  distress  and  misery  ;  although  under 
a  wise  Government,  some  centuries  ago,  Spain  was  the  most 
manufacturing  nation  in  the  world.  Even  yet,  two  or  three 
of  her  provinces,  where  industry  was  protected,  were  as 
prosperous  and  industrious  as  any  part  of  Europe. 

The  late  war  with  Great  Britain,  and  the  events  which  im- 
mediately preceded  it,  produced,  in  many  of  our  reflecting 
citizens,  a  due  sense  of  their  best  and  most  lasting  interests. 
With  a  rapidity  unexampled  in  the  history  of  any  other 
people,  a  large  portion  of  their  capital  was  transferred  from 
commercial  to  manufacturing  pursuits.  The  value  of  goods 
manufactured  in  the  United  States,  as  taken  from  the  mar- 
shal's returns,  amounted,  as  early  as  1810,  to  upwards  of 
$172,000,000,  which  value  was  greatly  increased  during  the 
late  war. 

The  peace  of  Europe  was  attended  with  ruinous  consequen- 
ces to  us  :  our  infant  manufactures  were  blighted  in  the  bud  ; 
the  spirit  of  speculation  spread  through  our  country,  seducing 
her  votaries  from  the  paths  of  quiet  and  laborious  industry, 
by  promises  of  sudden  wealth.  But  it  was  soon  found  that 
the  commerce  of  1815  and  1816  was  not  the  commerce  of 
1806  and  1807  :  the  nations  by  whose  calamities  we  had 
flourished,  whose  impoverishment  had  been  our  gain,  were 
now  at  peace  with  each  other,  and  returning  with  eager 
activity  to  the  employments  of  social  life  ;  our  vessels  were 
no  longer  wanted  to  convey  their  products,  nor  to  supply 
them  with  ours.  Cherishing  and  depending-  on  their  own  re- 
sources, they  have  furnished  us  a  useful  and  honorable  lesson 
in  the  encouragement,  support,  and  extension  of  domestic, 
and  salutary  restrictions  on  the  importation  of  foreign  manu- 
factures. An  imitation  of  their  policy,  in  this  respect,  your 
memorialists  believe  tube  indispensable  to  the  prosperity  and 
independence  of  our  country. 


1819-20.]  PETITIONS  TO  CONGRESS.  91 

To  remove  the  embarrassments  of  the  country,  and  to  restore 
life  and  vigor  to  our  almost  expiring  manufactures,  they  re- 
commended three  measures  : — 

First.  To  abolish  credit  on  import  duties.  Since  credits  on 
duties  were  first  established,  the  state  of  the  country  had 
changed.  Slowly  recovering  from  the  effects  of  a  desolating 
war,  almost  destitute  of  money  and  commercial  connections, 
it  was  necessary  to  aid  the  first  efforts  of  enterprise.  This 
measure  was  therefore  wise  and  salutary.  The  weakness  of 
our  internal  resources  produced  a  dependence  on  imposts  for 
the  support  of  Government.  But  how  great  the  change. 
From  a  population  of  three,  to  ten  millions  ;  from  an  annihi- 
lated commerce,  to  one  that  spreads  it  canvass  on  every  sea  ; 
from  a  state  of  agriculture  very  little  exceeding  our  own 
daily  wants,  to  a  surplus  production  exceeding  $80,000,000  a 
year  ;  from  an  almost  total  want  of  manufactures,  to  an 
actual  invested  manufacturing  capital  of  cotton  and  woolen 
goods  alone  exceeding  $50,000,000. 

Our  commerce  was  at  first  carried  on  by  resident  mer- 
chants, whose  prudence  and  experience  restrained  importa- 
tions within  due  bounds  ;  credits  on  the  duties  afforded  them 
facilities  which  their  situation  required.  But  for  some  years 
past,  and  especially  since  the  universal  peace  in  Europe,  and 
the  conclusion  of  our  late  war,  these  regular  traders  have 
been  supplanted  by  foreign  merchants  and  manufacturers,  or 
desperate  speculators,  whom  the  credit  on  duties  has  enabled 
and  induced  to  inundate  our  markets  with  foreign  goods,  pro- 
ducing the  most  pernicious  effects  on  our  mercantile  stability 
and  the  prosperity  of  our  manufactories.  It  may  also  be 
here  remarked,  that  the  operation  of  this  credit  on  imposts  is 
to  create  a  capital  for  new  importations.  For,  let  us  suppose 
that  four  importations,  to  the  amount  of  $100,000  each,  be 
made  in  one  year,  at  the  average  of  25  per  cent,  duty,  the 
sum  of  about  $100,000  is  left  to  trade  with  in  the  hands  of  the 
importer,  with  the  ultimate  risk  to  Government  of  the  loss  of 
the  whole.  A  credit  of  eight,  ten,  and  twelve  months,  in- 
creases the  facilities  of  the  merchants  and  manufacturers  of 
Great  Britain  for  carrying  into  effect  their  hostile  purpose 
of  extirpating  every  germ  of  manufactures  among  us. 

These  consequences,  injurious  as  they  are,  are  exceeded 
by  those  which  arise  from  the  trade  to  China  and  the  East 
Indies  ;  a  trade,  encouraged  as  it  is  at  present,  of  the  most 
exhausting  and  pernicious  effects.  The  long  credit  of  from 
one  to  two  years  allowed  by  law  on  duties  on  this  trade,  wo 


92  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  V, 

are  sincerely  persuaded,  produces  the  ruinous  effects  of  drain- 
ing us  of  our  specie,  and,  in  the  case  of  most  of  the  East 
India  goods,  overwhelming  our  markets  with  inferior  fabrics, 
•which,  from  their  apparent  cheapness,  meet  a  ready  sale, 
while  the  much  superior  products  of  our  own  industry  and 
skill  must  be  sacrificed  at  a  ruinous  loss,  or  remain  unsold  in 
the  hands  of  the  manufacturer. 

Secondly.  To  impose  a  restrictive  duty  on  sales  at  auction.  In 
the  extent  to  which  they  have  arrived  among  us,  they  are 
greatly  injurious,  not  only  to  the  fair  and  regular  dealer,  but 
to  the  community  at  large.  Large  quantities  of  silk,  wool- 
en, cotton,  and  other  goods  are  manufactured  in  Europe  and 
the  East  Indies,  expressly  for  sale  at  auction  in  the  United 
States.  These  goods  are  deficient  in  length  and  breadth, 
and  of  flimsy  texture  ;  yet  so  well  finished  to  the  eye,  that 
they  generally  escape  detection  until  they  reach  the  con- 
sumer. For  such  base  fabrics  have  our  people,  for  years 
past,  been  exorbitantly  taxed,  to  the  great  injury  of  our 
own  hard-struggling  manufacturers.  As  an  example  of  the 
enormous  extent  of  this  business,  the  petitioners  say,  that,  as 
appears  from  the  returns  of  the  auctioneers,  their  sales  of 
foreign  goods  amounted,  in  1818,  to  the  prodigious  sum  of 
$14,000,000  •,  from  which  they  judge  the  sales  in  the  United 
States  to  be  at  least  $30,000,000.  And  they  are  satisfied, 
from  past  experience,  that  the  sales  of  domestic  goods  at 
auction  are  as  deleterious  as  those  of  foreign  merchandise  ; 
as  they  tend  to  encourage  the  manufacture  of  inferior  fabrics, 
and  thereby  injure  the  reputation  of  American  fabrics  gen- 
erally. They  therefore  recommend  a  duty  of  10  per  cent,  on 
such  sales,  in  order  to  diminish  them. 

Thirdly.  To  alter  and  increase  the  duties  on  imported  gcods. 
And  the  petitioners  give  a  list  of  the  articles  which,  in  their 
opinion,  ought  to  be  charged  with  increased  duties,  and 
specify  the  particular  rate  of  duty  which  they  th'nk  ouglit  to 
be  imposed  on  each  article. 

In  favor  of  the  policy  which  they  recommend,  they  say : 
The  farmers  and  planters  would  largely  participate  in  the 
benefits  of  this  system.  The  planter  would  have  a  steady 
market  for  his  raw  material,  not  subject  to  those  destructive 
fluctuations  which  have  produced  such  extensive  ruin  within 
the  present  year  ;  arid  the  farmer  would  have  an  equally 
steady  and  increasing  demand  for  the  productions  of  his 
farm,  many  of  which,  especially  in  the  interior  of  the  country, 
and  in  the  Western  States,  will  not  bear  transportation  to 


1819-20.] 


PETITIONS  TO  CONGRESS. 


93 


market.  This  advantage  is  so  palpable,  that  we  shall  only 
refer,  in  illustration  of  it,  to  various  towns  and  villages 
throughout  the  United  States,  in  the  neighborhood  of  which, 
lands  and  their  productions  rose  100  or  200  per  cent,  in  value, 
in  consequence  of  the  extensive  establishment  of  manufac- 
tures, and,  by  their  decay,  have  fallen  below  their  original 
value. 

In  further  support  of  their  recommendations,  the  memorial- 
ists give  a  comparative  view  of  the  American  and  British 
tariffs  in  a  few  articles  : 

Am.  Tariff.     Br.  Tariff. 
Per  cent.       Per  cent 

Manufactures  of  brass, 20  591 

of  cotton, 25  85-| 

of  copper, 25  59J 

of  glass, 20  and  30  114 

of  linen, 15  142-| 

of  silk, 15        prohibited. 

China  and  earthen  wares, 20  99 

Hats,  caps  and  bonnets, 30  85| 

Woolen  hats, 30  150 

Stockings,  cotton  and  woolen, 20  851 

Watches,  &c., 7J  59^ 

Goods,  wares,  &c.  not  enumerated, 15  59  J 

Oil  of  vitriol, 7J  100 

Woolen  and  worsted  goods, 25  755 

In  order  to  protect  the  cultivation  of  cotton,  the  great  staple 
of  the  country,  by  securing  to  it  a  preference  in  foreign 
markets,  and  to  shield  it  from  the  ruinous  fluctuations  inci- 
dent to  a  competition  with  the  overwhelming  quantities  and 
inferior  qualities  from  India  and  other  parts  of  the  world,  and 
to  afford  security  to  the  cotton  manufacture,  and  especially  of 
the  coaraer  fabrics,  already  established,  one  of  these  memo- 
rials prayed  that  Congress  would  restrict  the  importation  of 
cotton  goods  to  such  as  were  manufactured  wholly  from  the 
raw  material  produced  in  the  United  States,  and  increase  the 
duties  on  all  cottons  of  foreign  growth. 

Petitions  were  also  presented,  asking  for  the  further  pro- 
tection of  boot  and  shoemakers,  paper  manufacturers,  book 
printers,  and  others. 

Mr.  Baldwin,  of  Pa.,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Manu- 
factures, reported  a  bill,  "to  regulate  the  duties  on  imports 
and  tunnage,  and  for  other  purposes."  This  bill  passed  the 
House  at  a  late  period  of  the  session,  and  was  taken  up  in 


94  THE  PROTECTIVE  irTSTEM.  [Chap.  V 

the  Senate  but  a  few  days  before  the  adjournment,  and,  after 
a  brief  discussion,  it  was  postponed  to  the  next  session  by  a 
vote  of  22  to  21. 

Although  this  bill  failed  to  become  a  law,  its  discussion  is 
not  on  that  account  the  less  important.  We  present  the 
views  of  the  friends  and  opponents  of  protection,  that  the 
reader  may  hereafter  bring  them  to  the  test  of  experience, 
and  draw  for  himself  correct  conclusions  on  this  great  con- 
troverted question  in  political  economy.  The  protective  sys' 
tern  had  not,  at  the  time  of  this  debate,  been  fairly  tried.  In- 
deed it  can  scarcely  be  said  to  have  been  as  yet  fully  tested. 
Its  friends  have  frequently  had  the  predominance  in  Congress, 
but  at  periods  too  short  in  duration  to  give  it  permanence 
and  stability,  and  to  secure  the  full  benefits  of  adequate  pro- 
tection. Yet  it  is  believed  that  to  no  other  single  measure 
is  the  country  more  largely  indebted  for  its  prosperity  than 
to  a  protective  tariff. 

Mr.  Baldwin  advocated  the  bill  on  the  grounds  both  of 
revenue  and  the  manufacturing  interest.  The  revenue  had 
been  diminished  by  the  repeal  of  the  internal  taxes,  and  there 
was  a  deficit  in  the  revenues  of  five  millions.  Loans  had 
been  resorted  to,  and  must  be  continued,  unless  some  other 
means  should  be  provided  for  supplying  the  treasury.  The 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  opposed  to  an  increase  of  du- 
ties for  this  purpose.  The  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means 
had  refused  to  report  a  bill,  or  recommend  any  means  for 
filling  the  treasury,  yet  called  upon  by  thousands  of  petition- 
ers to  do  something  to  protect  the  industry  of  the  nation. 
Left  thus  alone,  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  must  either 
abandon,  subject  to  certain  destruction,  the  great  interest 
confided  to  their  care,  or  report  a  system  which,  while  it 
would  not  injure  the  commerce,  should  aid  the  revenue,  and 
save  the  manufactures  of  our  country. 

At  the  organization  of  the  Government  impost  was  only 
one,  not  the  exclusive  source  of  revenue.  As  soon  as  the 
debts  of  the  Revolution  were  assumed  by  the  new  Congress, 
a  system  of  excise  and  internal  taxation  was  resorted  to  as  a 
paramount  means  of  paying  the  interest  of  the  National 
Debt.  And  in  the  preamble  to  the  act  for  laying  an  impost, 
"  the  encouragement  of  manufactures"  was  one  of  the  avowed 
objects  of  tin;  law.  This  was  the  revenue  system  of  tho 
founders  of.  the  government  ;  the  only  one  on  which  we  can 
rely  for  ponnaw-nt  protection  in  a  time  of  European  peace. 

The  policy  of  this  Government  was  changed  ;  not  because 


1819-20.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  95 

it  was  found  unwise,  but  because  the  continuance  of  the  war 
in  Europe  rendered  it  unnecessary.  Then  other  nations 
wanted  our  provisions  ;  their  price  was  such  that  the  labor 
of  this  country  was  diverted  from  its  natural  course.  Instead 
of  making,  we  imported  the  articles  of  common  consumption. 
The  impost  was  sufficient  for  all  our  wyants.  But  in  the 
change  of  events,  Europe  can  now  feed  herself,  and  compete 
with  us  in  other  markets  for  our  provisions.  Those  nations 
from  which  we  import  the  most,  now  refuse  to  receive  our 
produce  at  any  price.  .  .  .  When  gentlemen  complain  of 
the  extravagant  protection  that  this  bill  affords  to  national 
industry,  they  are  not,  perhaps,  aware  that,  in  general,  it  ex- 
ceeds, but  in  a  small  degree  that  recommended,  in  1816,  from 
the  treasury,  almost  exclusively  for  revenue. 

Mr.  B.  then  took  up  the  principal  items  in  the  bill,  com- 
pared them  with  the  existing  duties,  and  explained  and 
defended  the  several  alterations  proposed.  In  this  part  of 
his  speech  he  remarked  :  If  in  1816  it  was  right  to  impose  a 
duty  of  25  per  cent,  on  woolens  and  cottons,  principally  with 
a  view  to  revenue,  there  will  be  found  a  strong  reason  for  its 
increase  in  the  duties  now  imposed  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment, of  six  pence  sterling  on  every  pound  of  wool,  and  six' 
per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  cotton  wool,  imported  after  the  5th  of 
January,  1820.  Wool  has  been  an  article  of  export  from  this 
country  to  England.  The  new  duty  excludes  it ;  the  ports 
are  now  shut  against  your  provisions  ;  they  will  not  permit 
its  importation  until  the  price  of  wheat  is  ten  shillings  ster- 
ling ($2.22)  a  bushel.  Let  those  who  complain  so  much  that 
the  agricultural  interest  will  suffer  by  this  bill,  reflect  en 
these  facts.  Let  the  farmer  decide  whether  it  is  most  for  hi  3 
interest  to  purchase  his  clothing  from  the  foreign  maimfao- 
turer,  who  will  purchase  neither  his  wool  nor  his  provisions  j 
or  from  the  domestic  one,  who  will  give  him  a  market  fo  c 
both. 

It  is  feared  that  there  will  be  a  monopoly  and  a  desire  for 
speculation,  if  our  own  countrymen  can  supply  our  demands  ; 
yet  there  seems  to  be  no  fear  that  our  course,  of  policy  should  gi\e 
that  monopoly  to  British  manufacturers  !  Hundreds,  thousands  of 
our  citizens  are  out  of  employment,  who  would  add  infinitely 
to  the  national  wealth,  to  our  independence,  and  save  the 
national  resources  at  home,  if  their  labor  was  employed  in 
converting  our  raw  materials  into  fabrics  for  our  own  use. 
But  it  is  contended  that  our  true  policy  is  to  employ  the  labo? 
of  other  nations,  and  pay  them  the  profits  of  their  manufac- 


96  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  V. 

tures,  for  the  purpose  of  directing-  the  industry  of  ours  to  pro- 
ductions which  can  find  no  market  abroad,  and  have  no  value  at 
home.  These  new  duties  imposed  in  England  on  wool  and 
cotton,  ought  to  awaken  us  to  our  situation  ;  and  no  part  of 
the  country  ought  to  be  more  alive  to  their  effects,  than  that 
from  which  the  opposition  to  this  bill  is  the  greatest.  Eng- 
land does  not  wish  to  encourage  the  cotton  of  America.  She 
will  take  it  till  her  colonies  can  furnish  her  supplies.  Though 
her  best  customer,  though  she  now  depend  on  us  for  the  raw 
material  to  support  her  manufactures,  she  takes  wool  from 
the  continent,  cotton  from  us  ;  but  imposes  heavy  import 
duties,  which  are  paid  by  us  who  consume  the  manufactured 
articles.  We  thus  furnish  her  Government  with  revenue, 
and  her  laborers  with  employment,  while  ours  are  idle. 

Is  there  not  some  danger  of  our  erring  by  adopting  the 
system  which  best  accords  with  the  views  of  the  British 
Government  ?  If  it  were  submitted  to  them  to  choose  a  set 
of  measures  for  us  which  would  best  promote  their  interest, 
we  well  know  it  would  be  such  as  would  secure  to  their 
merchants,  manufacturers,  and  mechanics,  the  supply  of  all 
our  articles  of  consumption  and  defense  ;  to  give  them  the 
employment  of  the  labor  and  the  profits  of  converting  the  raw 
materials  into  fabrics  for  use.  This  policy  is  the  source  of 
their  national  greatness  ;  the  great  object  to  which  all  their 
efforts  are  directed.  It  has  existed  for  ages.  They  have 
not  left  things  to  "  regulate  themselves  ;"  this  has  not  been, 
it  will  not  be,  their  rnaxirn  ;  but  they  wish  to  see  it  adopted 
by  those  who  are  to  be  the  dupes  of  their  policy.  What  is 
sound  political  economy  there,  is,  it  seems,  here  the  raving  of 
madness,  the  result  of  empiricism.  Yet  it  would  excite  some 
sensation  in  this  House,  if  the  Ministers  of  England  should 
formally  present  us  with  a  plan  for  our  adoption.  We  should 
at  least  inquire  whether  it  was  the  result  of  their  friendship 
to  us,  and  whether  it  would  not  be  as  safe  to  trust  to  the 
opinion  arid  advice  of  our  own  statesmen.  To  import  only 
our  raw  materials  and  provisions,  to  be  our  exclusive  mer- 
chants and  carriers,  was  their  colonial  policy  before  the 
Revolution.  The  great  men  whose  wisdom  carried  us  through 
that  struggle,  did  not  then  think  that  the  system  of  internal 
policy  best  calculated  to  secure  our  independence,  and  to  co- 
erce England  to  respect  our  rights,  was  to  afford  employment 
to  her  riti/r-yis,  encouragement  to  her  artificers,  to  the  impov- 
erishment of  our  own. 

It  lias  never  been  charged  on  Bonaparte  that  he  was  defi- 


1819-20.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  97 

cient  in  foresight,  or  did  not  understand  the  mode  of  attacking 
his  enemy.  His  continental  system  was  not  aimed  at  the 
influence  or  political  power  of  England,  but  against  her  man- 
ufactures.  That  he  knew  to  be  the  source  of  her  power  ;  and 
there  he  attacked  her.  To  save  them,  England  fought  and 
subsidized  all  Europe. 

But  it  will  be  said  that  more  liberal  ideas  are  now  adopted 
by  other  nations  ;  that  the  principles  of  political  economy 
are  now  better  understood.  France  has  been  mentioned  ;  but 
when  her  tariff  is  examined,  it  will  be  found  to  be  more  rigid 
— to  contain  more  prohibitions  than  that  of  England...  As  to 
us,  it  contains  some  provisions  which,  I  think,  can  not  fail 
to  alarm  the  agriculturists,  the  cotton  planters  of  this  country. 
It  is  worthy  the  attention  of  this  House  to  look  at  their  im- 
port duties  on  cotton  wool. 

From  India,  30  f.  per  100  kil.,  equal  to  $3  per  cwt. 
Other  countries  out  of  Europe,  40  f.  per  100  kil.,  equal  to  $4 

per  cwt. 

Entrepots,  50  f.  per  100  kil.,  equal  to  $5  per  cwt. 
Turkey,  15  f.  per  100  kil.,  equal  to  $1.50  per  cwt. 
French  colonies,  10  f.  per  100  kil.,  equal  to  $1  per  cwt. 

This  short  item  contains  much  information  and  instruction. 
Their  whole  tariff  breathes  against  your  agriculture  and  com- 
merce a  spirit  of  hostility  as  unequivocal  as  any  regulation 
of  England  ;  as  to  cotton  more  so  ;  it  is  a  duty  of  $4  per  100 
pounds  ;  equal  to  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  the  raw  material, 
while  England  imposes  only  6.  That  it  is  aimed  at  this 
country  is  evident  from  its  being  so  much  more  than  on  cot- 
ton from  Turkey  and  India.  She  requires  our  cotton  now, 
but  this  duty  is  an  earnest  of  what  you  may  expect  from  her 
when  she  can  procure  a  supply  from  her  colonies  or  other 
countries.  She  receives  your  tobacco,  but  takes  care  to  ex- 
clude us  from  all  chance  of  competition  in  the  market,  by 
compelling  a  sale  to  the  Government,  who  buy  at  their  own 
price.  Rice  pays  $1  per  100  pounds  ;  from  America,  $2. 
Thus  we  find  the  two  nations  with  whom  our  intercourse  is 
the  greatest,  pursue  the  same  policy  as  to  our  great  agricul- 
tural products,  the  only  ones  they  receive  from  us.  They  are 
enriched  by  the  manufacture  of  it.  We  purchase  immense 
quantities  of  their  cottons,  and  woolens,  and  silks  ;  but  these 
favors  produce  no  relaxation  on  their  part.  Our  agriculture 
and  manufactures  are  now  prostrate,  and  commerce  goes 
next.  .  .  All  that  is  asked  is,  to  meet  regulation  by 

o 


98  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  V. 

regulation,  and  thus  make  the  competition  fair  and  equal. 
Apply  to  their  products  the  same  rule  that  they  apply  to  ours. 
If  they  tax  our  raw  materials,  tax  their  manufactures  to  the 
encouragement  of  ours.  If  they  exclude  our  provisions,  ex- 
clude their  products.  Let  our  legislation  keep  pace  with 
theirs  ;  then  our  industry  will  be  protected,  and  foreign 
nations  will  be  compelled  to  observe,  practically,  the  rule 
which  they  discard  from  their  code,  but  press  into  ours — 
"  let  things  regulate  themselves." 

We  are  told  that  this  bill  will  destroy  commerce.  This  is 
not  an  unexpected  alarm  ;  it  was  raised  when  the  last  tariff 
was  passed.  It  is  equally  loud  when  any  measure  is  pro- 
posed which  adds  a  cent  or  a  dollar  to  a  duty  on  importation. 
Joined  with  smuggling,  we  shall  always  hear  the  cry  repeat- 
ed when  any  measure  is  proposed  not  tending  to  the 
exclusive  benefit  of  that  interest.  I  had  indulged  the  hope, 
that,  at  this  time,  when  the  commerce  of  the  country  was  as 
prostrate  as  our  manufactures  ;  when  both  are  pressing  us 
for  protection  from  the  same  dangers,  that  its  friends  would 
make  common  cause,  and  join  in  a  common  struggle  for  self- 
preservation.  The  hope  was  not  a  sanguine  one  :  commerce 
has  been  too  long  a  pet,  the  spoiled  child  of  Government,  to 
think  there  are  any  other  interests  worth  protecting.  The 
mere  creature  of  legislation,  raised  to  importance  by  our 
laws,  and  the  expenditure  of  a  great  portion  of  our  revenue 
for  its  support,  commerce  has  presented  herself  as  the  Atlas 
which  supports  the.  Government,  the  country,  and  all  its 

?reat  interests  :  now,  ii;  seems,  she  cannot  support  herself, 
et,  while  approaching  you  in  a  suppliant  posture,  praying 
for  a  bankrupt  law  to  save  her  merchants,  navigation  acts  to 
save  her  shipping,  she  still  retains  the  spirit,  she  still  thinks 
that  legislation  must  be  for  her  benefit ;  boldly  claiming  the 
right  of  primogeniture  ;  loudly  protesting  that  anything  done 
for  the  other  children  of  the  nation  is  her  destruction.  While 
this  is  commerce,  "  I  am  against  it  ;"  but  if  she  claims  equal 
protection,  or  even  a  double  portion  in  her  favor,  I  will  go  as 
far  as  any  man  in  this  House  to  support  the  fair  trade  of  the 
country. 

Important  as  I  think  manufactures,  commerce  is  no  less 
so  ;  but  I  must  be  understood  as  not  meaning  that  commerce 
which  is  confined  to  the  export  of  raw  materials,  and  import 
of  manufactures  for  home  consumption,  which  adds  nothing 
to  the  labor  and  wealth  of  the  nation  ;  only  draws  from  the 
consumer  what  he  ought  to  retain  at  home — our  resources  to 


1819-20.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  99 

enrich  other  nations  ;  but  that  commerce  which,  by  the  car- 
rying trade — the  export  of  foreign  produce  and  our  own 
manufactures — draws  wealth  from  others  to  us  ;  equally  pro- 
moting the  great  interests  of  the  country. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  flourishing  period  of  our  commerce 
was  from  1802  to  1812  ;  the  best  years,  1806  and  1807.  It 
has  been  declining  since  the  peace — 1816  and  18 1-7  very  bad 
years  ;  the  worst  was  1818  ;  yet  the  average  amount  of  ex- 
ports for  the  first  period  was  less  than  in  1818  by  one  million. 
[Mr.  B.  here  gave  a  statement  of  exports,  in  different  years, 
of  domestic  and  foreign  produce,  and  of  revenue,  and  then 
proceeded  :]  These  facts  present  you  with  a  -history,  and 
account  for  the  rise  and  decline  of  commerce  as  well  as  man- 
ufactures :  they  show  the  kind  of  commerce  worth  protecting, 
in  which  I  will  be  behind  no  one  at  all  hazards,  even  of  a 
war.  Left  now  only  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  export  of  our 
produce,  and  the  importation  of  articles  of  consumption,  wo 
are  losing  the  carrying  trade  ;  not  for  the  want  of  laws  to 
protect  it,  buffer  this  evident  reason,  that  the  commercial 
nations  of  Europe  can  be  their  own  carriers,  import  directly 
from  their  own  colonies.  They  are  not  to  be  diverted  by 
navigation  acts  ;  other  means  must  be  adopted  to  restore  our 
commerce,  and  give  employment  to  our  shipping.  We  must 
do  as  other  nations  have  done — make  ourselves  carriers  by  creat- 
ing materials  for  trade.  None  ever  become  so  by  being  the 
consumers  of  the  manufactures  of  others.  In  a  settled  state 
of  things,  commerce  can  not  exist  without  manufactures — 
the  one  is  the  basis  and  affords  the  materials  of  the  other. 

The  agricultural  class  of  the  country  seems  alarmed  at 
this  bill  ;  with  what  reason,  it  is  certainly  difficult  to  divine. 
Their  situation  is  not  more  enviable  than  that  of  the  other 
great  interests.  The  ports  of  Europe  and  the  British  West 
Indies  are  closed  against  their  provisions  :  some  are  actually 
imported  for  our  own  consumption.  Wheat  in  the  interior  is 
37^  cents  a  bushel ;  flour  at  your  farms  $3,  and  $4  in  the 
seaports.  Excluded  from  foreign  markets,  you  complain  that 
we  are  creating  a  domestic  one.  .  .  .  Kemember,  if  the 
revenue  has  failed,  if  commerce  is  without  employment,  and 
agriculture  has  no  market,  manufactures  have  not  caused  it. 
It  seems  to  be  forgotten  that  it  is  writhing  almost  in  the 
agonies  of  death  :  far  from  being  able  to  injure  others,  it 
can  not  save  itself ;  and  it  is  as  low  as  its  worst  enemies 
could  wish.  All  have  alike  sunk  beneath  the  effects  of 
foreign  policy  and  your  indifference — laid  low  alike,  strug- 


100  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  V 

gling  side  by  side.  The  three  great  interests  of  the  country 
are  to  be  restored  only  by  your  interference  ;  they  call  on 
you  in  sepulchral  tones,  equally  to  warn  you  of  past  errors, 
and  to  implore  you  for  future  aid.  But,  sir,  listen  to  all  alike. 
Do  not  let  revenue,  calling  for  a  loan,  commerce  for  bankrupt 
and  navigation  acts,  drown  the  voice  of  manufactures  asking 
for  protection. 

The  treasury  report  tells  us  that  the  ad  valorem  imports  of 
1818,  are  $58,000,000  :  our  domestic  exports  only  $50,000, 
000.  This  must  be  changed  ;  we  must  buy  less  than  we 
sell.  There  is  one  domestic  work  on  political  economy 
better  than  any  imported  ;  containing  more  sound  political 
maxims  than  any  I  ever  read  :  the  almanacs  of  "  Richard 
Saunders.1'  He  says  :  "  If  you  keep  taking  out  of  the  meal 
chest  and  putting  nothing  in,  it  will  become  empty."  This 
is  the  state  of  the  nation.  An  enormous  flood  of  importation 
has  swept  before  it  the  industry  of  the  country  ;  $36,000,000 
of  imports  a  yeai  have  exhausted  its  resources  ;  it  is  literally 
empty. 

Look  where  you  will,  you  will  find  property  depressed,  pro- 
duce declining,  laborers  seeking  employment ;  nothing  in- 
creasing but  debts  and  suits  and  forced  sales.  If  the  peti- 
tions on  your  tables  do  not  give  you  the  true  cause  of  this  ; 
if,  when  manufacturers  and  fanners  are  joining  in 'their  sup- 
plications for  the  protection  of  national  industry,  you  want 
other  evidence  of  the  general  distress  ;  let  each  member  of 
this  House  say  what  is  the  situation  of  his  own  district. 
Many  of  them  have  seen  manufactures  flourish  :  did  farmers 
tberi  suffer  ?  Has  their  practical  operation  ever  been  injuri- 
ous to  any  portion  of  the  country  ?  We  have  tried  the  sys- 
tems both  of  supplying  ourselves  and  of  depending  on  foreign 
nations  ;  those  who  have  seen  the  effects  of  both  can  best 
judge  of  the  merits  of  this  bill. 

Mr.  Smith,  of  Md.,  expressed  his  views  in  general  opposi- 
tion to  those  of  Mr.  Baldwin  as  regarded  the  merits  of  the 
system  of  revenue  from  imports,  but  without  denying  that 
some  of  the  present  duties  might  require  to  be  increased. 
He  moved,  as  an  amendment,  to  strike  out  the  12|  per  cent, 
duty  on  certain  articles,  and  insert  7|,  the  rate  cnarged  by 
the  tariff  of  1816.  . 

Mr.  Clay,  of  Ky.,  after  paying  a  high  compliment  to  the 
ability  and  substantial  character  of  the  speech  of  Mr.  Bald- 
win, said  that,  until  an  answer  to  it  was  at  least  attempted, 
he  should  abstain  from  engaging  in  the  support  of  the  gen- 


1819-20.)  DEBATE  ON  THE  BiLL.  101 


eral  principles  of  the  bill.  At  prbscUt,  be  Oi%  rose.  S 
that  it  became  the  friends  of  the  manufacturing  interest  not 
to  lend  themselves  with  too  much  facility  to  alterations  pro- 
posed in  the  system  which  has  been  reported  by  the  Commit- 
tee on  Manufactures.  That  committee  had,  with  a  patience 
and  industry  never  surpassed  in  this  House,  prepared  and  re- 
ported a  general  system.  Its  provisions  were  the  result  of 
much  calculation  ;  and  if  the  friends  of  the  general  features 
of  it  listened  to  every  application  which  should  be  made  to 
change  this  or  that  particular  item,  the  effect  would  be  that 
they  would  lose  the  whole.  Mr.  C.  then  made  some  remarks 
against  this  particular  motion. 

The  question  was  taken  on  Mr.  Smith's  motion,  and  de- 
cided in  the  negative  without  a  division. 

Mr.  Silsbee,  of  Mass.,  moved  to  strike  out  the  proviso 
which  fixed  the  minimum  price  of  cotton  cloths  at  25  cents 
the  square  yard,  as  that  on  which  the  duty  was  to  be  charged. 
Negatived. 

After  several  motions  to  amend,  some  of  which  were  agreed 
to,  and  others  negatived, 

Mr.  Tyler,  of  Virginia,  moved  to  strike  out  the  first  section 
of  the  bill,  which  was  virtually  to  reject  it.  Mr.  T.  spoke  at 
length  in  opposition  to  the  bill.  He  attributed  the  embar- 
rassed condition  of  the  country  in  part,  to  the  general  peace 
throughout  all  Christendom.  The  inhabitants  of  Europe  were 
now  permitted  to  pursue  the  walks  of  peace,  and  were  no  longer 
dependent  on  us  for  those  large  supplies  which  they  lately  re- 
quired. Another  cause  was  to  be  found  in  that  hot-bed  bank- 
ing system  which  like  the  present  bill,  when  introduced,  was 
made  to  promise  us  such  potent  blessings. 

If  gentlemen  imagine,  said  Mr.  T.,  that  by  this  bill  they 
are  securing  the  permanent  interests  of  the  manufacturers  ; 
if  they  believe  that  this  is  all  that  will  be  required  at  the 
hands  of  the  Legislature,  they  are  grossly  deceived.  This  is 
but  the  incipient  measure  of  a  system.  I  venture  to  predict, 
that,  after  the  lapse  of  a  few  3Tears,  we  shall  be  assailed  by 
as  urgent  petitions  as  those  which  have  poured  upon  ns  at 
the  present  session.  What  will  be  the  effect  of  this  measure  ? 
It  proposes  a  rate  of  duties  sufficiently  high  to  enable  our 
artists  to  undersell  the  foreign  artists  in  the  markets  of  this 
country.  For  a  short  time  it  will  have  that  effect,  but  it  can- 
not long  continue.  It  adds  to  the  profits  of  those  who  at  this 
time  have  their  capitals  invested  in  manufactories  ;  and 
while  other  classes  will  labor  under  severe  pecuniary  em  bar 


JO^  TH&  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  V. 

•  rassmerits,  they  v.'iil  enjoy  comparative  prosperity.  What 
will  be  the  consequence  ?  No  principle  in  political  economy 
is  more  universally  true,  than  that  capital  will  flow  into 
those  employments  from  which  it  can  derive  the  greatest 
profits.  This  bill,  then,  will  have  the  effect  of  causing  new 
investitures  of  capital.  Thus  a  spirit  of  competition  will 
have  been  generated  ;  and  in  a  few  years  the  profits  of  these 
capitalists  will  have  settled  down  to  their  present  level. 

Again  :  The  advocates  of  this  system  have  attempted  too 
much.  They  have  clasped  in  their  embrace  too  many  favorites 
to  yield  a  permanent  benefit  to  any  one.  There  will  exist  an 
inequality  of  profits  in  the  various  branches  of  manufacturing 
industry  ;  and  this  circumstance  will  aid  greatly  in  produc- 
ing the  result  which  I  have  deduced.  To  simplify  my  argu- 
ment, let  me  present  to  you  a  supposititious  case  :  Take  the 
case  of  the  tailor  and  shoemaker.  If  the  tailor  makes  a 
greater  profit  in  his  trade,  then  you  will  have  more  tailors 
than  shoemakers  ;  more  labor  will  be  employed  by  the  one 
than  the  other.  The  shoemaker,  in  order  to  retain  his  laborers 
in  his  employment,  will  be  forced  to  give  higher  wages  ;  and 
the  tailor,  in  order  to  counteract  this  effect,  will  find  himself 
compelled  to  increase  the  wages  of  his  laborers.  And  thus, 
the  competition  between  them  will  urge  them  on  to  the  impo- 
sition of  higher  prices  on  their  different  fabrics.  While  the 
wages  of  labor  are  continually  advancing,  they  will  find  their 
profits  constantly  diminishing,  and  their  resort  to  high  prices 
for  their  products  will  resemble  the  desperate  effort  of  the 
gambler,  whose  hopes  are  all  staked  on  the  last  throw  of  the 
dice.  The  consequence  is  inevitable.  This  bill  secures  them 
not.  The  foreign  competitor  again  enters  your  market ;  and 
again  will  our  ears  be  deafened  with  cries  of  relief. 

Where  a  surplus  population  exists,  each  branch  of  industry 
will  be  \vell  supplied  with  laborers.  The  bidding  is  on  the 
part  of  the  laborer  for  employment,  arid  not,  as  in  a  new 
country,  by  the  undertaker  for  the  laborer.  But  where  you 
have  an  extensive  wilderness  yet  to  settle  ;  where,  from  the 
paucity  of  hands,  the  wages  of  labor  must  be  necessarily 
high;  where  the  laborer  feels  and  knows  the  value  that  is  set 
on  him  ;  as  sure  as  man  is  man,  the  effects  which  I  have  anti- 
cipated will  result.  If,  then,  you  intend  to  stop  here,  you  only 
hold  out  a  false  lure  ;  one  promising  permanent  benefit,  but, 
unless  pressed  to  prohibition,  resulting  in  vain.  I  take  it 
then  for  granted,  that  no  gentleman  will  vote  for  this  mea- 
sure who  is  not  prepared  to  go  on  to  prohibition. 


1819-20.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  103 

The  first  and  inevitable  effect  of  this  bill  will  be  to  reduce 
the  value  of  land  ;  to  diminish  the  value  of  the  capital  of  the 
farmer.  Manufacturing  labor  and  capital,  or  by  far  the 
greater  portion,  will  be  subducted  from  agriculture.  Men 
will  pursue  their  true  interests  ;  and  you  will  have  made  it 
their  interests  to  abandon  their  fields,  and  invest  their  capi- 
tal in  manufacturing  establishments.  The  advance  of  im- 
provement will  be  in  a  great  measure  stopped.  A  great  por- 
tion of  the  soil  will  be  thrown  out  of  cultivation,  and  the  re- 
sult is  obvious.  The  conclusion  is  drawn  from  principles  so 
clear,  that  to  press  it  would  be  an  unnecessary  waste  of  time. 

But,  sir,  what  will  be  the  effects  while  this  transition  of 
capital  is  taking  place  ?  It  must  be  some  time  before  society 
can  accommodate  itself  to  any  sudden  change.  America  is  now 
the  granary  of  the  world  ;  she  supplies  the  wants  of  the  na- 
tions as  they  arise.  It  is  true  that  the  foreign  market  is  at 
this  moment  almost  glutted  ;  but  shall  we  be  denied  the  ad- 
vantage of  profiting  by  a  change  in  that  market  ?  Do  not  all 
producers  experience  fluctuations  in  their  markets  ?  To-day, 
from  the  deficiency  of  the  supply,  high  prices  are  obtained  ; 
to-morrow  the  market  is  better  supplied,  and  a  diminution  in 
the  value  of  the  product  takes  place.  These  are  calculations 
which  all  must  make  in  whatever  branch  of  industry  they  are 
employed.  Who  can  tell  how  long  the  causes  which  now 
operate  to  our  injur}7  may  continue  to  exist  ?  Even  now,  new 
causes  of  disputes  among  the  Powers  of  Europe  may  be  un- 
folding themselves.  The  speck  which  is  now  scarcely  dis- 
cernible on  the  horizon,  the  next  moment  may  swell  into  a 
cloud,  dark  and  portentous.  Will  you  not,  by  this  system, 
deny  to  us  any  benefit  from  any  change  that  may  occur? 
Yes,  sir,  I  contend  that  you  will  have  done  so.  Society  lives 
on  exchanges  ;  exchange  constitutes  the  very  soul  of  com- 
merce. But  can  you  expect  that  foreign  nations  will  buy  of 
you  for  any  length  of  time,  unless  you  buy  of  them  ?  But 
suppose  they  could  ;  what  would  you  receive  in  return  ?  Gold 
and  silver  are  of  no  value  but  as  a  medium  of  exchange. 
Attempts  have  been  made  by  some  nations  to  retain  all  the 
gold  and  silver  that  flowed  in  upon  them.  The  attempt 
has  been  regarded  as  indicative  of  the  highest  folly.  So 
would  also  be  a  system  which  should  look  to  a  constant  im« 
portation  of  the  precious  metals. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  are  promised  a  home  market  for  our 
products.  Would  you  add  by  this  bill  to  the  number  of  con- 
in  the  United  States  ?  I  speak  of  the  agricultural  in- 


104  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  V 

terest  as  it  now  exists,  before  sufficient  time  shall  have 
elapsed  to  enable  the  farmer  to  desert  his  field,  and  give  a 
new  direction  to  his  labor.  If  you  succeed  in  building  up 
large  manufacturing  establishments,  will  you  add  to  the  num- 
ber of  consumers  ?  "Who  will  be  found  in  them  ?  Men  who 
must  be  fed  whether  they  are  there  or  elsewhere — laborers. 
Will  this  be  to  furnish  a  new  market  ? 

But,  sir,  we  must  become  independent  of  foreign  nations. 
This  is  the  basis  of  the  theory  ;  a  theory  which  aims  to  sub- 
vert the  ordinances  of  Heaven  itself.  I  was  near  pronounc- 
ing it  an  impious  theory.  Man  is  dependent  on  man,  and  na- 
tion on  nation.  One  produces  cotton  and  bread  stuffs,  while 
another  is  only  inhabited  by  graziers.  Would  you,  to  render 
Massachusetts  independent  of  South  Carolina,  undertake  there 
the  culture  of  cotton  ?  Yet  this  might  be  done  in  hot-beds, 
and  by  holding  out  high  rewards.  Or  would  South  Carolina 
be  so  blind  to  her  interest  as  to  abandon  the  culture  of  cotton, 
and  attempt  to  rival  Massachusetts  in  raising  stock?  It 
would  be  folly  for  her  to  do  so  ;  and  yet  it  might  possibly  be 
accomplished.  But  in  neglecting  to  do  so,  she  would  proceed 
on  the  true  principle  that  she  could  purchase  cheaper  than 
she  could  raise.  And  yet  we,  the  legislators  of  this  great  na- 
tion, proceed  on  a  different  principle,  and  assume  it  to  be  cor- 
rect to  manufacture  articles  which  might  be  obtained  on  much 
better  terms  from  abroad. 

On  what  is  this  system  founded,  which  is  proposed  as  a 
remedy  for  existing  evils  ?  It  is  based  on  narrow  and  con- 
tracted principles — a  desire  to  engross  all  wealth  to  ourselves 
and  to  beggar  others.  It  looks  not  abroad  through  the  world 
of  man,  but  confines  itself  to  home,  and  even  there  it  blights 
and  destroys  ;  it  overlooks  the  plainest  principles  of  politi- 
cal economy.  Let  us  not  run  after  bubbles  ;  let  us  learn 
contentment,  and  not  deceive  ourselves  ;  let  us  not  rudely 
and  heedlessly  throw  from  us  the  rich  blessings  which  Prov- 
idence has  bestowed  upon  us.  Let  other  nations  press  on,  if 
they  please,  to  that  point  when  they  will  lose  their  agricul- 
tural, and  assume  a  manufacturing  character  ;  so  much  the 
better  for  us  ;  our  market  will  thus  be  increased  for  the  pro- 
ducts of  our  soil,  and  wealth  and  happiness  will  await  us. 

Mr.  Storrs,  of  New  York,  spoke  about  an  hour  on  the  bill. 

Mr.  Gross,  of  Pa.,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Tyler,  said  :  The  gentle- 
man acknowledges  that  the  general  pacification  of  Europe, 
and  the  consequent  loss  of  a  market  for  our  agricultural  pro- 
ductions, is  the  cause  of  the  present  distress.  He  is  per- 


1819-20.1  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  105 

fectly  right.  We  may  talk  about  banks  and  extravagance 
as  much  as  we  please,  but  they  are  not  the  cause  of  our  mis- 
fortunes. They  are  rather  the  evidences  of  our  former  pros- 
perity. When  everything  which  our  soil  produced  com- 
manded a  high  price  in  European  markets,  and  when  we 
were  the  carriers  for  all  nations,  we  could  afford  to  be  extrav- 
agant. Industry,  sir,  simple  industry,  was  sufficient  to  se- 
cure to  every  individual  the  necessaries  and  conveniences  of 
life.  The  mechanic  found  abundant  employment  ;  the  plant- 
er and  farmer  found  a  ready  market  for  their  produce  ;  and 
the  merchant  became  wealthy.  The  case  is  altered  now. 
The  mechanic  is  without  business  ;  the  farmer  finds  110 
market  ;  and  the  capitalist,  instead  of  growing  rich  by  the 
interest  of  his  money,  is  forced  to  live  upon  the  principal, 
unless  he  choose  to  fatten  upon  the  misfortune  of  his  neigh- 
bors. Can  all  this  be  the  effect  of  luxury  ?  Extravagance 
makes  money  change  its  owners,  but  does  not  banish  it  from 
a  country,  if  that  country  be  otherwise  in  a  flourishing  con- 
dition. We  must  abandon,  it  is  true,  our  habits  of  snow  and 
parade,  in  order  to  accommodate  ourselves  to  our  present 
reduced  condition  ;  but  if  there  be  no  market  for  the  produce 
of  our  soil,  and  no  demand  for  our  labor,  our  efforts  will 
barely  enable  us  to  subsist.  To  arrest  the  progress  of  this 
evil,  and  to  prevent  the  enormous  exportation  of  specie,  it 
seems  to  me  that  we  should  furnish  ourselves  with  those  ar- 
ticles for  which  we  have  heretofore  sent  our  money  across 
the  Atlantic. 

But  let  us  inquire  what  remedy  the  honorable  gentleman 
proposes  for  the  evils  which  oppress  us.  Why,  sir,  he  seems 
to  have  discovered  a  "  speck  of  war'  in  the  European  hori- 
zon, a  little  cloud,  no  bigger,  at  present,  than  a  man's  hand, 
but  which  he  devoutly  hopes  will  increase  and  overshadow 
the  whole  eastern  continent.  Has  it  come  to  this  ?  Are  we 
to  confine  ourselves  exclusively  to  the  cultivation  of  the  soil, 
even  when  its  produce  will  not  procure  us  the  refuse  trash 
of  Europe  ?  Are  we  to  wait  in  our  present  situation  until  a 
war  in  Europe  shall  work  our  deliverance  ?  The  hope  of 
tjuch  an  event  is  impious.  But  suppose  it  should  actually 
happen  ;  where  is  our  security  for  its  continuance  ?  Must 
our  prosperity  forever  depend  upon  the  misfortunes  of  Eu- 
rope ?  Shall  we  be  condemned  to  mourn  whenever  peace 
shall  bless  her  shores  ?  Where  is  the  representative  who  is 
prepared  to  leave  his  country  in  such  a  state  of  vassalage 
and  dependence  ?  We  have,  sir,  at  a  vast  expense  of  blood 


106  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  ;fChap.  V. 

and  treasure,  established  and  maintained  our  political  inde- 
pendence ;  but  if  the  present  state  of  things  be  without  rem- 
edy, or,  if  we  have  not  spirit  enough  to  adopt  a  plan  of  re- 
form in  our  internal  policy,  we  may  as  well  renew  our  allegi- 
ance to  the  1'ritish  crown,  and  save  the  trouble  and  expense 
of  governing  ourselves. 

The  gentleman,  said  Mr.  G.,  seems  to  concur  with  the  cel- 
ebrated Dr.  Smith,  that  we  ought  not  to  accommodate  our 
pursuits  to  our  circumstances.  What  else  can  he  mean  by 
warning  us  not  to  change  the  direction  of  our  national  capi- 
tal ?  The  learned  doctor  informs  his  readers,  that  "  the  tailor 
does  not  attempt  to  make  his  own  shoes,  but  buys  them  of 
the  shoemaker.  The  shoemaker  does  not  attempt  to  make 
bis  own  clothes,  but  employs  the  tailor.  The  farmer  attempts 
to  make  neither  the  one  nor  the  other,  but  employs  those 
different  artificers."  And  what  reason  does  the  doctor  give 
for  all  this  ?  It  is,  according  to  him,  because  "  all  these  find 
it  for  their  interest  to  employ  their  whole  industry  in  a  way 
in  which  they  have  some  advantage  over  their  neighbors, 
and  to  purchase  with  a  part  of  its  produce,  or,  what  is  the 
eame  thing,  with  the  price  of  a  part  of  it,  whatever  else  they 
may  have  occasion  for."  Will  any  one  deny  the  correctness 
of  these  remarks  ?  Yet,  sir,  if  they  be  designed  as  an  argu- 
ment against  the  present  bill,  there  are  not  more  sophistical 
and  Jesuitical  sentiments  in  the  English  language.  They  are 
founded  on  the  assumed  fact  that  the  tailor,  the  shoemaker 
and  the  farmer,  depend  mutually  on  each  other  for  the  par- 
ticular articles  which  their  industry  produces.  But  let  us 
suppose  that  the  farmer  has  no  longer  any  "  advantage  over 
his  neighbor,"  the  tailor,  by  the  cultivation  of  the  soil.  Let 
us  take  it  for  granted  that  he  cannot  dispose  of  his  provis- 
ions ;  that  the  shoemaker  is  supplied  from  another  quarter  ; 
and  that  the  tailor  supplies  himself.  Let, us  imagine,  more- 
over, a  very  probable  case,  that,  for  the  want  of  a  market,  he 
cannot  purchase,  with  the  price  of  a  part  of  his  produce,  the 
shoes  and  coats  of  his  neighbors  ;  what  shall  he  do  under 
these  circumstances  ?  Shall  he  remain  unclothed  and  un- 
shod for  fear  of  interfering  with  Dr.  Smith's  system  of  econo- 
my ?  Shall  he  prefer  the  cultivation  of  the  soil,  naked  as  he 
is,  which  can  yield  him  no  profit,  to  those  mechanical  arts 
which  will  at  least  secure  him  from  the  inclemency  of  the 
weather,  and  preserve  him  from  debt? 

The  honorable  gentleman  informs  us  that  manufacturers 
are  no  inure  depressed  than  other  classes.  True  ;  but  shall 


1819-20.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  107 

we,  for  this  reason,  abandon  the  country  to  its  fate?  Yes, 
says  he,  let  everything  regulate  itself ;  and  manufactures 
will  gradually  be  introduced  from  necessity.  I  am  satisfied 
that  they  will  be  established,  whether  we  pass  this  bill  or 
not  ;  for,  by  permitting  things  to  take  their  natural  course, 
whilst  every  other  nation  is  intermeddling'  with  commercial 
matters,  we  are  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  suspending  al- 
most entirely  our  foreign  importations.  We  are  compelled 
to  provide  a  home  market  for  our  provisions  and  raw  mate- 
rials. For  my  part,  sir,  I  am  willing  to  aid  the  effects  of  our 
foolish  policy,  while  they  tend  to  work  their  own  remedy. 
The  good  sense  of  the  community  is  awake.  A  spirit  of  in- 
quiry has  gone  forth,  and  the  progress  of  opinion  in  favor  of 
a  change  of  policy  is  not  to  be  arrested.  But  if  the  govern- 
ment does  nothing,  years  of  suffering  and  embarrassment 
may  pass  away  before  the  evil  will  be  completely  cured.  Let 
us  not  permit  the  distresses  of  our  fellow  citizens  to  be  the 
sole  cause  of  reformation.  The  skillful  physician  follows  the 
indications  of  nature,  and  assists  all  its  operations  in  throw- 
ing off  the  disease.  Let  us  follow  the  example,  and  afford 
a  seasonable  encouragement  to  the  manufacturing  interest, 
which  is  now  struggling  between  hope  and  despair. 

But  the  gentleman  foresees  an  excise  duty  if  we  pass  this 
bill.  If  he  should  prove  that  such  will  be  the  result,  I  can- 
not see  that  he  will  have  gained  much  ground.  What  has 
his  own  system  produced  ?  A  deficit  of  $5,000,000  and  a 
yearly  decrease  of  revenue.  As  to  the  revenue,  the  two  sys- 
tems are  the  same  ;  but  in  regard  to  the  internal  prosperity 
of  the  country,  the  advantage  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  new 
plan  of  economy.  The  old  policy  has  ruined  the  revenue  by 
impoverishing  the  people  ;  the  present  bill  proposes  to  ex- 
clude a  portion  of  foreign  commodities,  in  order  to  encourage 
the  industry  of  our  own  citizens.  Let  us  look  back  to  the 
late  war,  and  to  the  measures  of  government  at  its  close.  At 
the  commencement  of  the  contest,  we  experienced  the  evils 
of  a  want  of  manufacturing  establishments  in  the  most  sensi- 
ble manner.  The  capitalist  began  to  turn  his  attention  to 
the  subject ;  but,  before  a  supply  could  be  furnished,  the 
Government  was  compelled  to  submit  to  the  disgrace  of  con- 
niving at  a  violation  of  its  own  laws,  and  of  countenancing 
smuggling,  for  the  sake  of  clothing  the  army.  The  youth  of 
our  establishments,  their  small  number,  and  the  consequent 
want  of  competition,  caused  the  high  prices  for  which  our 
manufacturers  have  been  so  often  reproached.  A  few  years 


108  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.   V 

would  have  remedied  the  evil.  The  lesson  then  taught  us 
ought  not  to  have  been  so  soon  forgotten.  We  ought  to  have 
learned  that  it  was  essential  to  our  independence  to  be  able, 
at  all  times,  to  furnish  ourselves  with  many  of  the  articles 
which  we  now  import  from  abroad. 

But  on  the  receipt  of  the  news  of  peace,  the  country  seemed 
mad  with  joy.  Without  reflecting  on  the  altered  condition 
of  Europe,  and  not  considering  that  our  produce  could  no  longer 
be  disposed  of  there,  Congress  formed. a  tariff  on  the  honora- 
ble gentleman's  plan — a  treasuiy  tariff,  a  revenue  tariff — with- 
out regard  to  the  situation  of  the  country.  Need  I  mention 
the  result  ?  The  low  duties  brought  upon  the  nation  a  perfect 
deluge  of  foreign  goods.  Our  infant  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments were  prostrated  ;  but  the  individual  distress  of 
their  proprietors  was  unnoticed  amid  the  general  joy  at  see- 
ing the  national  treasury  filled  to  overflowing.  We  have 
purchased  foreign  commodities  until  we  can  purchase  them 
no  longer.  The  revenue  has  declined,  and  will  continue  to 
decline. 

I  believe,  said  Mr.  G.,  that  the  gentleman  will  find  it  diffi- 
cult to  prove  what  he  seems  to  have  no  hesitation  in  assert- 
ing, that  this  bill  will  lessen  our  exportations.  What  do 
England  and  France  purchase  of  us  at  present  which  the}'  can 
do  without  ?  If,  therefore,  we  should  encourage  the  indus- 
try of  our  citizens  by  manufacturing  a  portion  of  our  own  raw 
materials,  it  will  by  no  means  interfere  with  the  sale  of  the 
remainder. 

It  is  insisted  by  the  gentleman,  that  this  bill  will  induce 
capitalists  to  engage  in  manufacturing,  and  that  the  result 
will  be  a  competition  at  home  which  will  reduce  the  prices 
of  manufactured  articles  to  a  level  with  those  of  foreign  na- 
tions. He  even  predicts  that  the  time  may  come  when 
foreign  commodities  will  be  prohibited.  Does  any  one  be- 
lieve this  ?  Sir,  I  should  hail  such  an  event  as  the  era  of  our 
complete  independence.  The  example  of  England  is  contin- 
ually presented  to  our  view.  We  are  told  of  her  continual 
wars,  of  her  immense  debt,  of  the  starving  condition  of  the 
lower  class  of  her  citizens.  I  am  not  an  advocate  of  the  prin- 
ciples by  which  she  has  been  governed.  The  gentleman  says 
that  her  vast  population  has  compelled  her  to  resort  to  man- 
ufacturing for  their  support  ;  but  I  say,  sir,  that  her  manu- 
facturing system  has  produced  her  vast  population.  By 
manufacturer.:'  i'-r  »-x]>'>rt:it:<>n.  she  lias  subjected  lu-rsolf  to 
the  same  inconveniences  to  which  \ve  are  liable  by  n  >t  man- 
ufacturing at  all.  £hw-  has  rendered  herself  dependent  oi»  it 


1819-20.]  DEBATE  ON  THE'  BILL.  109 

foreign  market  for  the  sale,  not  of  the  produce  of  her  hus- 
bandmen, but  of  her  mechanics.  To  preserve  this  foreign 
market,  she  has  for  a  century  kept  Europe  involved  in  war. 
She  has  oppressed  Ireland,  enslaved  India,  and  cheated  the 
rest  of  the  world.  The  difference  between  her  and  ourselves 
is,  that  we  are  dependent  on  foreign  countries  for  the  purchase 
and  she  for  the  sale,  of  manufactured  articles.  But  is  there  no 
medium  between  being  dependent  on  foreigners  for  the  pur 
chase  or  sale  of  the  necessaries  of  .life  ?  Could  we  permit 
our  industrious  citizens  to  furnish  a  supply  for  home  con- 
sumption, we  should  be  dependent  on  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other.  Must  we  of  course  manufacture  for  exportation,  if  we 
manufacture  at  all  ?  By  no  means.  The  effect  of  a  judicious 
encouragement  of  the  mechanical  arts  will  be  to  retain  in 
the  country  the  cash  which  is  now  paid  to  foreigners.  Will 
this  be  nothing  ?  Is  it  nothing  to  prevent  the  annual  expor- 
tation of  thirty  millions  of  specie  ?  This  bill  will  enable  us 
in  peace  and  in  war,  to  set  at  defiance  the  worst  possible 
state  of  the  European  markets,  arid  leave  us  free  to  profit  by 
every  change  in  our  favor. 

This  bill  has  a  national  object  in  view  ;  and  individual 
considerations  should  be  laid  aside.  We  have  heard  much 
wrangling  from  a  quarter  whence  it  should  have  been  least 
expected.  The  very  people  who  are  most  interested  in  the 
passage  of  this  bill,  and  whose  demands  for  the  encourage- 
ment of  their  peculiar  industry  have  almost  uniformly  been 
complied  with,  are  clamorous  about  a  miserable  tax  of  fire 
cents  a  gallon  on  molasses.  My  constituents  are  deeply  in- 
terested in  the  proposed  increase  of  duty  on  bar  iron  ;  but.  I 
am  proud  to  believe  that,  should  it  be  stricken  out,  I  should 
forfeit  their  confidence  by  voting  against  the  bill. 

The  foregoing  speech  of  Mr.  Gross  was  delivered  the  24th 
of  April.  The  debate,  in  which  some  of  the  ablest  speakers 
participated,  was  continued  until  the  29th.  Those  who  fur- 
ther spoke  upon  the  bill,  and  whose  speeches  are  reported  at 
length,  were,  Messrs.  Baldwin,  Clay,  M'Lane,  of  Delaware, 
M'Kinsey,  of  New  Jersey,  in  favor  of  the  bill  ;  and  Messrs. 
Silsbee,  Whitman,  and  Holmes,  of  Massachusetts,  Alexander, 
Archer,  and  P.  P.  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  and  Lowades,  of 
South  Carolina,  in  opposition.  The  designed  limits  of  this 
work  forbid  our  giving  copious  extracts  from  these  speeches. 
This  is  rendered  the  less  necessary,  as  net  many  new  points 
were  raised  in  the  discussion.  Yet  as  some  of  the  topics  em- 
braced in  the  debute  were  presented  in  a  somewhat  different 
light,  we  make  a  few  additional  extracts. 


110  .THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  V. 

To  the  remark  of  Mr.  Tyler,  that  the  United  States  stood 
in  relation  to  the  rest  of  the  world  as  a  granary,  Mr.  Storrs, 
of  N.  Y.,  replied,  that,  if  this  country  were  a  granary,  it  was 
one  which  permitted  our  grain  to  remain  on  our  hands. 
Mr.  Alexander,  of  Va.,  in  allusion  to  this,  asked,  If  we  were 
cut  off  from  the  extensive  market  that  is  now  opened  for  the 
reception  of  our  produce,  and  were  confined  to  the  United 
States,  would  we  not  be  more  properly  a  granary  in  the  sense 
in  which  he  [Mr.  Storrs]  used  the  word  ?  Mr.  Alexander 
ani  others  who  then  so  highly  appreciated  the  foreign  mar- 
kels  for  the  produce  of  the  American  farmers,  little  thought 
that,  within  a  few  years,  three  of  the  Eastern  manufacturing 
States  would  buy  more  of  the  surplus  breadstuffs  of  the 
country  than  all  the  rest  of  the  world  ;  as  was  actually  the 
case  soon  after  the  passage  of  the  tariff  act  of  1824.  Nor 
did  those  members  from  Massachusetts,  who  so  zealously 
opposed  the  bill,  suppose  that  the  people  of  that  State  would 
so  soon  send  to  Congress  a  delegation  almost  unanimous  in 
favor  of  a  high  protective  tariff. 

It  will  be  recollected  that  the  abolition  of  credits  on  duties 
had  been  prayed  for  by  some  of  the  petitioners  for  protection. 
This  question  of  cash  duties  was  to  some  extent  involved  in 
the  discussion  on  the  tariff.  The  continuance  of  the  credit 
system  was  advocated  by  the  opponents  of  protection. 

Mr.  Baldwin  said,  in  reference  to  the  long  credits,  which 
were  given  for  the  duties  on  goods  imported  from  Europe, 
from  eight  to  twelve  months,  and  on  those  from  the  East 
Indies  1'rom  eight  to  eighteen  months — that  he  did  not  object 
so  much  to  their  expediency  at  the  time  of  their  adoption,  as 
to  their  being  continued  and  enlarged  after  the  reasons  for 
granting  them  had  ceased,  and  when  their  effects  had  become 
injurious  to  all  parts  of  the  country.  They  were  granted  for 
the  benefit  of  American  commerce,  and  as  facilities  to  American 
merchants  ;  but  they  now  operate  to  the  destruction  of  the 
one,  and  the  impoverishment  of  the  other.  By  selling  the 
goods  at  auction  for  cash,  or  on  short  credits,  for  notes  which 
can  be  discounted  at  bank,  the  amount  of  duties  thus  loaned 
may  be  invested  in  a  new  voyage.  Generally  one,  and  often 
two  adventures  may  be  completed,  before  the  duties  on  the 
first  are  due.  In  the  year  1819,  there  were  entered,  in  the 
custom-house  in  New  York,  oiVJa.S  packages  of  foreign  goods, 
of  which  'vere  on  foreign  account,  8,299  only  on 

American  account.  Thus,  in  the  proud  i-nipon'mii  of  our 
.',  wlit-re  capital  is  abundant,  and  in  vain  seeking- 


1819-20.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  HI 

profitable  employment,  three-fourths  of  the  importations 
appear  to  be  on  foreign  account,  the  sales  of  which,  for  the 
most  part,  are  by  auction.  England,  who  fought  the  common 
battles  of  herself  and  other  nations,  and  who  paid  them  for 
fighting  for  themselves,  now  finds  her  manufactures  mostly 
excluded  from  the  Continent  ;  her  merchants  and  manufac- 
turers seeking  rather  for  some  market  than  a  good  one.  Few 
nations  will  buy  from  them  at  all  ;  none  but  this  will  furnish 
them  with  a  capital  on  a  long  credit  without  interest.  Mr.  B. 
showed,  by  an  example,  how  the  American  merchant,  by  this 
system,  became  a  loser,  while  the  foreign  manufacturer  was 
a  gainer.  This,  said  he,  accounts  for  the  CTICS  of  distress 
which  assail  us  from  the  commercial  cities,  imploring  us  to 
abolish  credits  on  imposts,  and  impose  heavy  duties  on 
auction  sales. 

Speaking  of  the  present  condition  of  the  country,  Mr.  B. 
said  : 

You  have  tried  imposts  till  your  revenue  has  left  you  five 
millions  short  of  your  expenses  ;  credits,  till  one-fifth  is  in 
suit ;  importations  on  foreign  accounts,  till  your  commerce  is 
destroyed  ;  auction  sales,  till  your  merchants  are  idle,  (their 
hopes  resting  upon  a  bankrupt  law  ;)  foreign  goods,  till  your 
manufactures  are  abandoned ;  foreign  markets,  till  your 
farmers  find  their  produce  rotting  on  their  hands  ;  and  yet 
it  is  contended  that  the  continuance  of  this  condition  of  the 
country  is  necessary  for  its  welfare  ;  that  a  change  will  be 
ruinous.  If  the  universal  distress  can  not  be  easily  traced 
and  satisfactorily  accounted  for,  when  called  on,  as  you  have 
been  this  session,  by  the  people  of  the  country,  they  will  ex- 
pect some  better  answer  to  their  petitions  than  these  alarms, 
which  are  always  raised  whenever  there  has  been  any  attempt 
to  adopt  measures  of  vital  importance.  When  you  urge 
them,  you  must  give  reasons  ;  show  how  the  present  system 
will  restore,  how  the  proposed  one  will  injure  us  ;  show  how 
internal  industry  will  injure  internal  prosperity  ;  how  idle- 
ness promotes  national  strength  or  individual  wealth  ;  and, 
above  all,  satisfy  the  farmer  for  whose  interest  there  is  so 
much  anxiety,  how  he  is  to  be  injured  by  buying  his  clothing 
of  those  who  will  purchase  his  produce.  Now,  the  surplus  of 
his  farm  will  not  clothe  his  family  and  procure  him  his  uten- 
sils. Now  he  understands  what  is  meant  by  buying  cheap  ; 
that  it  does  not  consist  in  the  price  of  the  article  he  wants, 
so  much  as  in  the  price  of  the  article  with  which  he  is  to 
make  payment.  When  cloth  is  at  ten  dollars  a  yard,  and 


112  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  V 

flour  at  ten  dollars  a  barrel,  one  pays  for  the  other— cloth  at 
six  dollars  and  flour  at  three,  the  cloth  to  the  farmer  hag 
doubled  in  price  ;  the  barrel  of  flour  procures  but  half  a  yard 
of  cloth.  These  things  will  be  understood.  There  is  no 
n^'stery  in  political  economy  ;  it  is  a  plain,  simple  calcula- 
tion of  what  is  bought  by  the  least  labor  and  the  smallest 
quantity  of  produce.  That  article  is  the  cheapest  which  the 
consumer  pays  for  the  most  easily. 

What  encouragement  does  the  importer  or  retailer  of 
foreign  goods  now  give  the  farmer  ?  What  injury  has  a 
manufacturer  in  his  neighborhood,  or  a  market  at  his  door, 
ever  done  him  ?  Is  it  better  for  him  to  seek  a  market  by 
navigation  of  3,000  miles,  when  found  glutted  by  supplies 
from  other  sources,  the  price  less  than  at  home  ;  the  home 
market  destroyed  by  the  eagerness  for  a  foreign  ?  Shall  all 
competition  be  destroyed,  our  produce  left  at  the  mercy  of 
other  nations  who  have  agricultural  interests  of  their  own  to 
protect  ?  Are  they  better  friends  to  the  American  farmer 
than  even  our  own  Government  ?  their  citizens  than  our  own 
citizens  ?  These  are  questions  which  must  be  answered  in 
some  other  way  than  "  you  will  ruin  the  country." 

Mr.  Silsbee,  of  Mass.,  opposed  the  change  proposed  by  the 
bill,  in  shortening  the  credits  on  duties,  as  imposing  new 
restrictions  and  additional  burdens  upon  the  commercial  and 
navigating  interest.  The  revenue  from  the  customs,  in  1818, 
said  Mr.  S.,  was  $21,828,451  ;  of  which  $5,410,320  accrued 
on  articles  which  are  entitled  to  a  credit,  according  to  the 
provisions  of  this  bill ;  and  $16,631,852  were  derived  from 
articles  which  are  to  be  liable  to  be  cash  payment  of  duties. 
So  that  less  than  one-fourth  part  of  the  amount  of  duties  are 
to  have  the  benefit  of  a  credit  of  three  and  six  months,  and 
more  than  three-quarters  of  the  duties  are  to  be  paid  in  cash. 
The  merchants  of  the  United  States  are  at  this  time  under 
bonds  to  the  Government  for  the  payment  of  about  $20,000, 
000  within  a  year.  Should  this  bill  pass,  and  not  lessen  the 
amount  of  duties  that  would  otherwise  accrue,  it  will  require 
from  the  merchants  a  further  payment  of  $10,000,000  or 
$15,000,000  more,  making  $30,000,000  to  $35,000,000  within 
a  year  from  the  time  this  bill  takes  effect.  Can  the  commer- 
cial interest  bear  an  additional  assessment  of  50  to  7.5  per 
cent,  at  a  time  when  it  is  all  but  impossible  to  comply  with 
their  present  engagements  ? 

It  has  been  said  that  credits  now  given  operate  as  loans 
to  the  importers.  This  may  be  the  case  in  so.ne  instances  ; 


1819-20.J  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  113 

and  equally  true  that  in  many,  and  I  believe  I  may  say 
in  most  cases,  the  duty  is  paid  to  the  Government  before  it 
is  received  from  the  consumer.  If  merchants  are  compelled 
to  pay  the  duties  before  they  can  realize  them  from  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  goods,  the  effect  will  be  to  lessen  their  business, 
and,  consequently,  to  lessen  the  revenue. 

Respecting  the  "  balance  of  trade,"  Mr.  S.  said  :  We  have 
heard  much  about  the  balance  of  trade,  which  is  said  to  have 
been  very  much  against  this  country  for  a  number  of  years 
past ;  and  gentlemen  seem  to  have  made  up  their  opinions 
on  this  subject  from  the  custom-house  returns  of  imports  and 
exports.  In  the  first  place,  these  returns  are  very  imperfect  ; 
but  if  otherwise,  they  would  not  afford,  (as  now  made,)  a 
correct  means  whereby  to  ascertain  the  balance  of  trade. 
They  might  guide  us  to  a  tolerably  correct  conclusion,  if  our 
exports  were  sold,  and  our  imports  purchased  on  our  own 
shores.  But  these  alone,  however  correctly  made,  are  not 
sufficient  for  a  commercial  nation.  We  are  the  carriers  of 
the  greater  part  of  our  own  exports  and  imports  ;  therefore 
the  advantage  of  freight  and  profit  (where  there  is  any)  is  to 
be  brought  into  the  calculation.  The  imports  may  even 
exceed  the  exports,  without  creating  a  balance  against  us. 

Mr.  Alexander,  of  Va.,  on  the  same  subject,  said  :  We  had 
heard  a  great  deal  said  on  the  importance  of  preserving  a  fa- 
vorable, or  at  least  of  a  just  balance  of  foreign  trade.  There 
was  no  topic  connected  with  the  knowledge  of  political 
economy  so  little  perplexed  and  difficult  in  its  nature,  which 
appeared  to  be  so  inadequately  understood  as  this, — of  the 
degree  of  interference  which  was  required,  by  good  policy, 
to  be  exerted  in  adjusting  the  results  of  foreign  commerce. 
The  truth  was,  that  the  balance  of  trade,  foreign  or  domestic, 
not  only  required  no  exertion  of  care  for  its  preservation,  but 
was  not  the  subject  of  possible  permanent  derangement. 
Any  temporary  inclination  which  might  be  occasionally  com- 
municated to  this  balance,  was  liable  to  immediate  and  inevi- 
table self-correction.  The  continuance,  for  any  considerable 
period,  of  an  unequal  state  of  the  foreign  balance,  (if  such  a 
condition  of  things  were  of  possible  continuance,)  wrould 
operate  as  a  mischief,  instead  of  a  benefit,  to  the  nation  in 
whose  favor  it  prevailed,  inasmuch  as  it  would  render  the 
countries  against  which  the  balance  was  found  unable  to  dis- 
charge the  debts  created  by  their  purchases. 

Mr.  Whitman,  of  Mass.,  on  the  effects  of  extraordinary  en« 
couragement  to  manufactures,  said :  Great  manufacturing 


114  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  V. 

establishments  are  not  desirable  in  our  country.  They  wouM 
have  an  influence  over  the  people  that  is  to  be  dreaded. 
They  have  but  one  interest — an  interest  adverse  to  commerce, 
and  oppressive  to  agriculture.  Their  owners  can  instantly 
unite,  and  will  unite,  from  one  extreme  of  the  country  to  the 
other,  to  accomplish  any  favorite  purpose.  Even  in  mon- 
archies— in  strong  Governments— we  have  seen  that  they 

are  with  difficulty  kept  from  an  undue  influence This 

wide-spread  combination,  guided  by  the  dictates  of  common 
interest,  will  do  as  they  have  done  :  they  will  move  heaven 
and  earth  to  accomplish  their  designs.  I  beg  leave  to  quote 
a  book  written  by  one  of  the  most  ingenious  and  critical  ob- 
servers of  men  and  things  in  his  own,  or,  perhaps,  in  any 
other  country.  Speaking  of  the  manufacturers  in  England, 
he  says  :  "  They  are  aware  of  their  own  numbers.  Tho 
moral  feeling  which,  in  the  peasant,  is  only  blunted,  is,  in 
these  men,  debauched.  A  manufacturing  population  is  al- 
ways ripe  for  rioting.  The  direction  which  it  may  take  is 
accidental.  In  1780,  it  was  against  the  Catholics  ;  in  1790, 
against  the  Dissenters.  Governments  who  found  their  pros- 
perity upon  manufactures,  sleep  upon  gunpowder." 

Mr.  Archer,  of  Ya.,  said  there  was  a  single  consideration 
which  was  conclusive  against  the  policy  of  giving  the  pro- 
posed encouragement  to  manufactures,  and  that  was  the  fact 
of  their  inability,  independently  of  artificial  support,  to  main- 
tain themselves,  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  most  abundant 
supply  of  their  most  essential  materials.  If  they  required 
further  advantage,  in  the  competition  with  foreign  fabrics, 
than  exemption  from  the  multifarious  expenses  incident  to 
the  transport  of  the  material,  and  re-transport  of  the  wrought 
article  between  Europe  and  this  country,  the  inference  was 
irresistible  against  their  claims  to  extraordinary  encourage- 
ment. Mr.  A.  also  opposed  the  argument  in  favor  of  tho 
protection  of  manufactures  with  the  view  to  our  independence 
of  foreign  nations.  Absolute  independence  of  other  nations, 
for  the  purposes  either  of  the  vent  of  our  productions,  or  of 
the  supply  of  our  wants,  was  an  object  unattainable  except 
by  the  annihilation  of  foreign  commerce. 

But  the  objection  of  greatest  force  to  an  extended  manu- 
facturing system,  said  Mr.  A.,  related  to  tho  character  of  tho 
population  it  tended  to  form.  What  kind  of  a  population 
was  it  ?  A  population  distorted  and  decrepid,  as  respects 
both  bodily  endowments,  cquully  marked  by  imbecility  and 
abasement  In  large  manufacturing  establishments,  phys- 


1619-20.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  115 

ical  and  moral  evils  found  their  source  of  refuge.  It  was  ia 
such  nurseries  that  pestilence  was  most  accustomed  to  take 
its  birth  and  collect  its  venom.  The  moral  evils  derived 
from  the  same  sources  were  no  less  conspicuous.  It  was  not 
less  true  of  moral  than  of  material  objects,  that,  when  col- 
lected and  kept  iu  groups  and  masses,  they  were  prone  to 
undergo  a  fermentive  process,  and  to  assume  a  putrefactive 
condition.  Among  civilized  nations,  accordingly,  the  heated 
and  surcharged  atmosphere  of  extensive  manufacturing  es- 
tablishments was  found  to  present  the  situation  most  unfa- 
vorable to  moral  sanity. 

It  was  in  a  political  view,  however,  the  evil  of  an  extend  ed 
manufacturing  population  was  the  most  striking.  This  por- 
tion of  population  was  not  to  be  excluded  from  political 
rights.  And  what  was  their  qualification  likely  to  prove  for 
the  exercise  of  such  rights  ?  Depending  for  the  means  of 
occupation  and  subsistence  on  the  class  of  employers,  they 
were  liable  to  become  the  mere  instruments  of  that  class,  in 
the  discharge  of  political  functions.  Let  occasions  of  severe 
general  distress,  or  of  political  excitement,  be  taken  into 
view,  and  in  what  light  was  this  population  to  be  regarded  ? 
As  an  element  of  civil  distemper,  distributed  throughout  the 
State,  liable,  with  the  slightest  incitement,  to  be  awakened 
into  paroxysm.  Yet  a  far  worse  characteristic  was  its  ten- 
dency, through  this  liability  to  disorder,  to  give  occasion  to 
an  arbitrary  administration  of  Government,  and,  finally,  to  in- 
jurious changes  in  the  form  of  it. 

Upon  the  whole,  Mr.  A.  regarded  the  bill  as  neither  just  in 
its  principles,  nor  equal  in  its  operation.  To  the  general  prin- 
ciple of  the  measure,  he  said  he  could  not  express  his  objections 
more  aptly  than  in  the  reason  assigned  by  an  ancient  English 
patriot,  when  called  to  expiate  his  attachment  to  liberty  on 
the  scaffold  for  resistance  to  an  arbitrary  Government.  He 
said  he  had  never  been  able  to  discover  that  "  some  men 
came  into  the  world  with  saddles  on  their  backs,  and  others 
booted  and  spurred  to  ride  them.'"  Neither  could  Mr.  A.  ad- 
mit that  parties  came  into  the  Federal  Union  in  any  such 
relative  conditions.  And  he  would  take  occasion  to  warn 
gentlemen  who  thought,  by  means  of  the  present  or  any  other 
injustice,  to  mount  upon  the  backs  of  the  Southern  people, 
that  they  would  find  their  seats  neither  pleasant  nor  so  en- 
tirely secure,  but  that  they  might  chance  to  encounter  a  fall, 
from  the  effects  of  which  it  might  not  be  easy  to  recover. 

Mr.  Clay  spoke  at  length  in  support  of  the  bill }  and  in  tho 


116  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap  V 

course  of  his  speech,  touched  upon  many  points,  a  few  ot 
"which  only  are  we  permitted  to  notice.  The  first  important 
inquiry,  he  said,  was,  whether  it  were  desirable  that  such  a 
portion  of  our  capital  and  labor  should  be  employed  in  the 
business  of  manufacturing,  as  would  furnish  a  supply  of  our 
necessary  wants.  Since  the  colonization  of  America,  the 
principal  direction  of  the  labor  and  capital  of  the  inhabitants 
had  been  to  produce  raw  materials  for  the  consumption  or 
fabrication  of  foreign  nations.  We  had  always  had,  in  great 
abundance,  the  means  of  subsistence  •,  but  we  had  derived 
chiefly  from  other  countries  our  clothes  and  instruments  of 
defense.  Except  during  those  interruptions  of  commerce 
arising  from  a  state  of  war,  or  from  measures  adopted  for 
vindicating  our  commercial  rights,  we  had  experienced  no 
great  inconvenience  from  this  mode  of  supply.  But,  said  Mr. 
C.,  a  new  epoch  had  arisen  ;  and  ifc  becom.es  us  to  contem- 
plate our  actual  condition,  and  the  relations  which  are  likely 
to  exist  between  us  and  the  other  parts  of  the  world.  We 
double  our  population  in  about  twenty-five  years.  If  there 
be  no  change  in  the  mode  of  exerting  our  industry,  we  shall 
duplicate,  in  the  same  time,  the  quantity  of  our  exported 
produce.  Europe,  including  such  of  her  colonies  as  we  have 
free  access  to,  taken  altogether,  does  not  duplicate  her  popu- 
lation in  a  shorter  term  probably  than  one  hundred  years. 
Hence  it  is  manifest,  that  the  powers  of  the  consuming  coun- 
tries will  be  found  unequal  to  those  of  the  supplying  country. 
I  believe  we  are  already  beginning  to  experience  this  want 
of  capacity  in  Europe  to  consume  our  surplus  produce.  For 
our  bread-stuffs  we  have  now  scarcely  any  foreign  demand. 
But,  say  gentlemen,  there  are  some  inherent  objections  to 
the  introduction  of  the  manufacturing  system  into  this  coun- 
try ;  and  we  are  warned  by  the  example  of  England,  by  her 
pauperism,  by  the  vices  of  her  population,  her  wars,  &c.  It 
would  be  a  strange  order  of  Providence,  if  it  were  true,  that 
he  should  create  indispensable  wants,  and  yet  should  render 
us  unable  to  supply  them  without  the  degradation  or  con- 
tamination of  our  species.  Pauperism  is,  in  the  general,  the 
effect  of  an  overflowing  population.  Manufactures  may  pro- 
duce a  redundant  population  ;  but  so  may  commerce,  and  so 
may  agriculture.  Many  parts  of  Asia  would  exhibit,  per- 
haps, as  afflicting  effects  of  an  extreme  prosecution  of  the 
agricultural  system,  as  England  can  furnish  respecting  the 
manufacturing.  It  is  not,  however,  fair  to  argue  from  theso 
extreme  cases,  against  cither  the  one  system  or  the  other. 


.    x9-2Q.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  117 

There  are  abuses  incident  to  every  branch  of  industry,  to  ev- 
ery profession.  Even  in  England,  it  has  been  established  by 
the  diligent  search  of  Colquhoun,  from  the  most  authentic 
evidence,  the  judicial  records  of  the  country,  that  the  instan- 
ces of  crime  were  much  more  numerous  in  the  agricultural 
than  in  the  manufacturing  districts  ;  thus  proving  that  the 
cause  of  wretchedness  and  vice  in  that  country,  was  not  in 
this  or  that  system,  so  much  as  in  the  density  of  its  popula- 
tion. 

France  resembles  this  country  more  than  England  in  the 
employments  of  her  population  ;  yet,  we  do  not  find  anything 
in  the  condition  of  the  manufacturing  portion  of  it  which 
ought  to  dissuade  us  from  the  introduction  of  manufactures. 
But  even  France  has  not  that  great  security  against  the 
abuses  of  the  manufacturing  system,  against  the  effects  of 
too  great  a  density  of  population,  as  we  have  in  our  waste 
lands.  Whilst  this  resource  exists,  we  have  nothing  to  ap- 
prehend. Do  capitalists  give  too  low  wages  ?  Are  the  la- 
borers too  crowded,  and  in  danger  of  starving  ?  The  un- 
seated lands  will  draw  off  the  redundancy,  and  leave  the  oth- 
ers better  provided  for. 

The  manufacturing  system  is  favorable  to  the  maintenance 
of  peace.  Foreign  commerce  is  the  great  source  of  foreign 
vars.  The  eagerness  with  which  we  contend  for  every 
branch  of  it ;  the  temptations  which  it  offers,  operating  alike 
upon  us  and  on  foreign  competitors,  produce  constant  collis- 
ions. No  country  on  earth,  by  the  extent  of  its  superficies, 
the  richness  of  its  soil,  the  variety  of  its  climate,  contains 
more  abundant  facilities  for  supplying  all  our  national  wants 
than  ours  does.  It  is  not  necessary  or  desirable,  however, 
to  cut  off  all  intercourse  with  foreign  powers.  But  after  se- 
curing a  supply,  within  ourselves,  of  all  the  great  essentials 
of  life,  there  will  still  be  ample  scope  for  preserving  such  an 
intercourse.  If  we  had  no  intercourse  with  foreign  states  ; 
if  we  adopted  the  policy  of  China,  we  should  have  no  exter- 
nal wars.  And  in  proportion  as  we  diminish  our  dependence 
on  them,  we  lessen  the  danger  of  the  recurrence  of  war. 

The  tendency  of  reasonable  encouragement  to  our  home 
industry,  is  favorable  to  the  preservation  and  strength  of  our 
confederacy.  Now  our  connection  is  merely  political.  For 
the  sale  of  the  surplus  of  our  agricultural  produce,  all  eyes 
are  constantly  upon  the  markets  of  Liverpool.  There  is 
scarcely  any  of  that  beneficial  intercourse — the  best  basis  of 
political  connection,  which  consists  of  the  exchange  of  the 


118  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM. 

E reduce  of  our  labor.  On  our  maritime  frontier,  there  has 
con  too  much  stimulus,  an  unnatural  activity  ;  in  the  great 
interior  of  the  country,  there  exists  a  perfect  paralysis.  En- 
courage fabrication  at  home,  and  there  will  instantly  arise 
animation  and  a  healthful  circulation  throughout  all  parts  of 
the  Republic.  The  cheapness,  and  fertility,  and  quality  of 
our  new  lands,  offer  such  powerful  inducements  to  cultiva- 
tion, that  our  countrymen  are  constantly  engaging  in  it.  I 
would  not  check  this  disposition  by  hard  terms  in  the  sale  of 
it.  Let  it  be  easily  accessible  to  all  who  wish  to  acquire  it. 
But  I  would  countervail  this  predilection  by  presenting  to 
capital  and  labor  motives  for  employment  in  other  branches 
of  industry.  Nothing  is  more  uncertain  than  the  pursuit  of 
agriculture,  when  we  mainly  rely  upon  foreign  markets  for 
the  sale  of  its  surplus  produce  ;  first,  because  we  cannot  de- 
termine the  amount  of  this  surplus  ;  secondly,  we  cannot  an- 
ticipate the  extent  of  the  foreign  demand. 

But  gentlemen  say,  "  Let  things  alone  ;  all  will  come  right 
in  the  end."  Now,  I  agree  with  them  that  things  would  ul- 
timately get  right  ;  but  not  until  after  a  long  period  of  dis- 
order and  distress,  terminating  in  the  impoverishment,  and 
perhaps  ruin  of  the  country.  If  gentlemen,  by  their  favorite 
maxim,  mean  only  that,  within  the  bosom  of  the  State,  things 
are  to  be  left  alone,  and  each  individual,  and  each  branch  of 
industry  allowed  to  pursue  their  respective  interests,  with- 
out giving  a  preference  to  either,  I  subscribe  to  it.  But  if 
they  require  that  things  are  to  be  left  alone,  in  respect  not 
only  to  interior,  but  to  exterior  action  also  ;  not  only  as  re- 
gards the  operation  of  our  own  Government  upon  the  maws 
of  the  interests  of  the  State,  but  also  as  it  relates  to  the  ope- 
ration of  foreign  Governments  upon  that  mass,  I  dissent 
from  it. 

The  maxim  in  this  enlarged  sense,  is  indeed  everywhere 
t.  proclaimed,  but  nowhere  practiced.  It  is  truth  in  the  books 
of  European  political  economists  ;  it  is  error  in  the  practical 
code  of  every  European  State.  It  is  not  applied  where  it  is 
most  applicable  ;  it  is  attempted  to  be  introduced  here,  where 
it  is  least  applicable  :  and  even  here  its  friends  propose  to 
limit  it  to  the  single  branch  of  manufacturing  industry, 
whilst  every  other  interest  is  encouraged  and  protected,  ac- 
cording to  the  policy  of  Europe.  The  maxim  would  best  suit 
Europe,  where  each  interest  is  adjusted  to  every  other,  by 
causes  which  have  operated  during  many  centuries.  Every- 
thing there  has  taken  and  preserved  its  ancient  position 


1819-20.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  119 

There,  everything  has  found  its  place  and  its  level,  and  eve- 
rything, one  would  think,  might  there  be  safely  let  alone. 
Here,  everything  is  new  and  unfixed.  Neither  the  State  nor 
the  individuals  who  compose  it,  have  yet  settled  down  in 
their  firm  and  permanent  positions.  There  is  a  constant  ten- 
dency, in  consequence  of  the  extent  of  our  public  domain, 
towards  production  for  foreign  markets.  The  maxim,  in  the 
comprehensive  sense  in  which  I  am  considering  it,  to  entitle 
it  to  observance,  requires  two  conditions,  neither  of  which 
exists  :  first,  that  there  shall  be  perpetual  peace  ;  secondly, 
that  the  maxim  shall  be  everywhere  respected.  If  there  be 
no  reciprocity — if  on  the  one  side  there  is  perfect  freedom  of 
trade,  and  on  the  other  a  code  of  odious  restrictions,  will  gen- 
tlemen still  contend  that  we  are  to  submit  to  such  an  unpro- 
fitable and  degrading  intercourse  ?  I  will  not  enter  into  a 
detail  of  the  restrictions  with  which  we  are  everywhere  pre- 
sented in  foreign  countries.  I  will  only  assert  that  they  take 
nothing  from  us  which  they  can  produce  themselves,  even  on 
worse  terms  than  those  upon  which  we  could  supply  them. 

Take  again,  as  an  example,  the  English  corn  laws.  Amer- 
ica presents  the  image  of  a  fine,  generous-hearted  3'oung  fel- 
low, who  has  just  come  to  the  possession  of  a  rich  estate  ; 
an  estate  which,  however,  requires  careful  management.  He 
makes  nothing  ;  he  buys  everything.  He  is  surrounded  by 
a  parcel  of  Jews,  each  holding  out  his  hand  with  a  packet  of 
buttons  or  pins,  or  some  other  commodity,  for  sale.  If  he 
asks  these  Jews  to  buy  anything  which  his  estate  produces, 
they  tell  him  no  ;  it  is  not  for  our  interest  ;  it  is  not  for 
yours.  Take,  says  one  of  them,  this  new  book  on  political 
economy,  and  you  will  there  perceive  that  it  is  for  your  intercut 
to  buy  from  us,  and  "  let  things  alone77  in  your  own  country. 

But  this  maxim,  which  requires  us  to  abandon  our  home 
industry  to  the  influence  of  the  restrictive  system  of  othor 
countries,  is  not  observed  by  gentlemen  in  regard  to  the  othor 
great  interests  of  the  nation.  We  protect  our  fisheries  by 
bounties  and  drawbacks.  We  protect  our  tunnage,  by  ex- 
cluding or  restricting  foreign  tunnage  exactly  as  ours  iis 
excluded  or  restricted  by  foreign  States.  We  passed,  a  yeair 
or  two  ago,  the  bill  to  prohibit  British  navigation  from  her 
West  India  colonies  to  the  United  States,  because  ours  wa,s 
shut  out  from  them.  We  have  now  upon  our  table  bills  con- 
nected with  that  object,  and  proposing  restrictions  upon  the 
French  tunnage,  to  countervail  theirs  upon  ours.  The  Gen- 
eral Government,  from  its  first  formation  to  the  present  time, 


120  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM  [Chap.  Y. 

has  nourished  and  protected  the  foreign  trade.  Why  have 
iiot  all  these  great  interests  been  left  to  the  operation  of  the 
gentleman's  favorite  maxim  ?  Sir,  it  is  perfectly  right  that 
we  should  have  afforded  this  protection.  And  it  is  perfectly 
right,  in  my  humble  opinion,  that  we  should  extend  the  prin- 
ciple of  it  to  home  industry.  I  am  a  friend  to  foreign  trade  ; 
but  I  protest  against  its  being  the  monopolist  of  all  the  favor 
and  care  of  this  Government. 

The  general  measure  of  the  protection  which  the  proposed 
tariff  affords,  is  pronounced  immoderate  and  enormous.  Yet 
no  one  ventures  to  enter  into  a  specification  of  the  particular 
articles  to  show  that  it  deserves  to  be  thus  character- 
ized. .  .  .  The  grain  growing  country,  the  fruit  country, 
and  the  culture  of  cane,  would  all  be  benefited  by  the  duty. 
Its  operation  is  said,  however,  to  be  injurious  on  a  certain 
quarter  of  the  Union.  It  is  not  to  be  denied,  that  each  par- 
ticular section  may  feel  some  one  or  more  articles  of  the  tariff 
to  bear  hard  upon  it,  during  a  short  period  ;  but  the  com- 
pensation is  to  be  found  in  the  more  favorable  operation  of 
others.  I  am  fully  persuaded,  that  no  part  of  the  Union 
would  more  largely  share  in  the  aggregate  of  the  benefits  of  the 
tariff  than  New  England.  No  quarter  of  the  Union  can  urge, 
with  an  iller  grace,  objections  to  a  measure  having  for  its 
object  the  advancement  of  the  interests  of  the  whole  ;  for 
none  has  participated  more  extensively  in  the  benefits  flow- 
ing from  the  General  Government.  Her  tunnage,  her  fisher- 
ies, her  foreign  trade,  have  constantly  been  objects  of  federal 
care.  There  was  expended  the  greatest  portion  of  the  public 
revenue.  The  building  of  the  public  ships  ;  their  equip- 
ment ;  the  expenses  incident  to  their  remaining  in  port, 
chiefly  took  place  there.  That  great  drain  upon  the  revenue, 
the  Revolutionary  pension  law,  tended  principally  to  New 
England.  I  do  not  complain  of  theee  advantages  which  she 
enjoys.  She  is  probably  fairly  entitled  to  them.  But  gentle- 
men* from  that  quarter  may  at  least  be  justly  reminded  of 
them  when  they  complain  of  the  onerous  effect  of  one  or  two 
items  of  the  tariff. 

If  this  bill  shall  be  defeated,  what  account  shall  we  render 
to  our  constituents  on  our  return  among  them  ?  .  .  .  Can 
we  plead  ignorance  of  the  general  distress,  and  of  the  ardent 
wishes  of  the  community  fur  that  protection  of  its  industry 
which  this  bill  proposes?  No,  sir  ;  daily,  almost  throughout 
the  session,  have  \*e  been  receiving  petitions,  with  which  our 
table  is  now  loaded,  imploring  us  to  extend  this  protection. 


1819-20.]  BILL  PASSES  THE  HOUSE.  121 

Unanimous  resolutions  from  important  State  Legislatures 
have  called  upon  us  to  give  it  ;  and  the  people  of  whole 
States,  almost  in  a  mass — of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Penn- 
sylvania, and  Ohio — have  transmitted  to  us  their  humble 
petitions  to  encourage  the  home  industry.  Let  us  not  turn 
a  deaf  ear  to  them.  Let  us  not  disappoint  their  just  expec- 
tations. Let  us  manifest,  by  the  passage  of  this  bill,  that 
Congress  does  not  deserve  the  reproaches  which  have  been 
cast  upon  it,  of  insensibility  to  the  wants  and  sufferings  of 
'Jie  people. 

The  debate  closed  on  the  29th  of  April ;  and  a  motion  was 
made  to  postpone  the  bill  to  the  next  session,  which  was 
negatived  :  Yeas,  78  ;  nays,  90. 

The  question  on  the  final  passage  of  the  bill  was  then 
taken,  and  decided  in  the  affirmative  :  Yeas,  91  ;  nays,  78, 
as  follows  : 

New  Hampshire :  Nays,  5.  Massachusetts:  Yeas.  10;  nays,  7.  Rhode 
Island:  Yeas,  2.  Connecticut:  Yeas,  5;  Nay,  1.  Vermont:  Yea,  1;  nays, 
4.  New  York :  Yeas,  25.  New  Jersey :  Yeas,  6.  Pennsylvania :  Yeas, 
22;  nay,  1.  Delaware:  Yeas,  2.  Maryland:  Yeas,  2 ;  nays,  7.  Virginia: 
Yea,  1 ;  nays,  18.  North  Carolina  :  Yea,  1 ;  nays,  12.  Georgia :  Nays,  6. 
Kentucky :  Yeas,  5  ;  nays,  3.  Tennessee  :  Nays,  5.  Ohio  :  Yeas,  6.  In- 
diana: Yea,  1.  Illinois:  Yea,  1.  Mississippi:  Nay,  1.  Louisiana:  Nay,  1. 

The  bill  was  taken  up  in  the  Senate  on  the  4th  of  May.  A 
motion  was  made  by  Mr.  James  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  to  post- 
pone the  bill  to  the  next  session  ;  and  after  a  debate  of  sev- 
eral hours,  in  which  Messrs.  Barbour,  of  Va.f  Dickerson,  of 
N.  J.,  Burrill,  of  Rhode  Island,  and  Otis,  of  Massachusetts, 
participated,  the  question  was  taken,  and  decided  in  the 
affirmative  :  Yeas,  22  ;  nays,  21. 


122  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VL 


CHAPTER    VI. 

Session  of  1820-1821.     Report  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures.    Counter  Re- 
port of  the  Committee  on  Agriculture. 

WHATEVER  hopes  the  friends  of  the  adjourned  tariff  bill  of 
1820  may  have  entertained  of  its  passage  at  the  succeeding 
session,  it  is  evident  from  the  remonstrances  presented  to 
Congress,  that  such  a  result  was  feared  by  its  enemies.  The 
memorials  at  this  session  seem  to  have  been  more  numer- 
ous against,  than  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill,  and  the 
consequent  increase  of  duties  on  imports. 

Mr.  Baldwin,  from  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  to 
whom  the  memorials  had  been  referred,  again  made  a  report 
to  the  House.  This  report  is  one  of  unusual  length.  It  re- 
presents the  condition  of  the  country  as  in  no  measure  im- 
proved. It  says  that  at  the  end  of  thirty  years  of  its  opera- 
tion, the  Government  finds  its  debt  increased  $20,000,000, 
and  its  revenue  inadequate  to  its  expenditure  ;  $35,000,000 
drawn  from  the  people  by  internal  taxation,  $341,000,000  by 
impost,  yet  the  treasury  dependent  on  loans  ;  in  profound 
peace,  and  without  any  national  calamity,  the  country  en> 
barrassed  with  debts,  and  real  estate  under  rapid  deprecia- 
tion ;  the  markets  of  agriculture,  the  pursuits  of  manufac- 
tures, diminished  and  declining ;  commerce  struggling,  not 
to  retain  the  carrying  of  the  produce  of  other  countries,  but 
our  own.  It  is  not  a  common  occurrence  in  the  history  of 
nations,  that  in  peace  the  people  should  call  on  the  Govern- 
ment to  relieve  their  distresses  ;  and  the  Government  should 
reciprocate  the  call,  arid  ask  the  people  to  relieve  the  Gov- 
ernment. 

For  the  first  twenty-two  years  we  enjoyed  all  the  advan- 
tages of  peace  at  home,  and  war  abroad.  We  prospered 
amidst  the  distresses  of  others.  But  it  ought  not  to  be  said 
of  a  Republic,  that  its  institutions  are  calculated  only  for  a 
state  of  foreign  convulsion  ;  that  it  can  flourish  only  when 
others  suffer.  History  does  not  furnish  another  instance  of 
a  nation  relying  on  the  importation  of  goods  as  the  almost 
exclusive  source  of  revenue.  In  every  other  nation,  agricul- 
ture, manufactures  and  commerce,  have  been  deemed  inti- 


1821.]  REPORT  ON  MANUFACTURES.  123 

mately  connected,  each  necessary  to  the  growth  of  the  other, 
all  essential  ingredients  of  national  happiness  ;  in  ours  there 
is  said  to  be  an  hostility  deep,  inveterate  and  incurable.  To 
every  individual  among  us,  it  is  the  first  lesson  of  economy 
to  earn  more  than  is  expended,  to  sell  more  than  is  bought, 
to  export  more  than  is  imported  ;  yet  this  is  said  to  be  bad 
policy  for  a  nation. 

Our  population  has,  within  the  thirty  years  of  the  present 
Government,  increased  nearly  three-fold  ;  of  the  aggregate 
of  our  exports,  cotton  excepted,  there  is  scarcely  any  increase. 
In  cotton,  there  has  been  not  only  a  prodigious  increase,  but, 
as  it  were,  a  new  creation.  The  value  of  this  article  export- 
ed is  to  the  amount  of  all  our  exports,  as  twenty-two  to  fifty- 
one.  It  exceeds  all  the  other  agricultural  productions  of  the 
country,  but  can  be  raised  only  in  southern  sections.  To 
them  and  the  nation  at  large,  it  is  of  infinite  interest  ;  it  re- 
lieves the  general  gloom  ;  but  to  sixteen  States  it  affords  no 
profits,  except  by  carrying  and  consumption  :  it  furnishes  no 
foreign  market  for  other  productions. 

When  the  statesman  has  compared  the  imports  with  the 
exports,  he  can  well  account  for  the  following  view  of  our 
situation,  as  given  in  the  Treasury  report  on  the  currency  : 

"  The  currency  of  the  United  States  has  in  three  years 
been  reduced  from  $110,000,000  to  $45,000,000.  The  reduc- 
tion exceeds  fifty-nine  per  cent,  of  the  whole  circulation  of 
1815.  All  intelligent  writers  upon  currency  agree,  that, 
where  it  is  decreasing  in  amount,  poverty  and  misery  must 
prevail.  The  correctness  of  this  opinion  is  too  manifest  to 
require  proof ;  the  entire  voice  of  the  nation  attests  it  accu- 
racy. As  there  is  no  recorded  example  in  the  history  of  na- 
tions of  a  reduction  of  the  currency,  so  rapid  and  so  exten- 
sive, so  but  few  examples  have  occurred  of  distress  so  gen- 
eral and  so  severe  as  that  which  has  been  exhibited  in  the 
United  States." 

Without  inquiring  whether  the  state  of  the  currency  is  a- 
cause  or  an  effect,  it  is  enough  to  know  and  feel  the  melan- 
choly truths  thus  avowed.  The  sea,  the  forest,  the  earth, 
yield  their  abundance  ;  no  calamity  has  visited  the  people  ; 
peace  smiles  on  us  ;  plenty  blesses  the  land.  Whence,  then, 
this  universal  burst  of  distress  ?  When  the  bounties  of 
Providence  fail  to  prove  beneficent  in  their  effects,  man  must 
be  perverse,  or  Government  unjust.  Past  the  thirtieth  year 
of  our  existence,  in  the  present  form,  approaching  the  fiftieth 
of  independence,  and,  counting  from  the  year  of  its  recog- 


124  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VI. 

nition,  we  have  had  fewer  months  of  war  than  years  of 
peace  ;  yet  abundance  cannot  relieve  our  wants  ;  the  mar- 
ket for  the  one,  the  supply  of  the  other,  are  neither  within 
the  control  of  the  people,  nor  directed  by  the  Government. 
A  Government,  too,  of  the  people's  choice,  bound  to  reward 
filial  attachment  by  national  protection,  it.  was  not  institut- 
ed— it  is  not  supported — to  suffer  all  the  interests  of  the  na- 
tion to  be  writhing-  under  foreign  policy,  and  while  implor- 
ing relief,  to  be  sunk  under  the  appalling  answer,  "  regulate 
yourselves." 

The  following-  remarks  on  the    decrease  of  the   currency 
and  the  "  balance  of  trade,"  deserve  special  attention. 

The  estimate  of  the  Treasury  Department  is  that,  in  three 
years,  the  currency  of  the  country  was  diminished  $65,000,- 
000,  counting  from  1815  ;  that  this  diminution  has  produced 
unexampled  distress.  How  has  it  produced  this  state  of 
things  ?  If  the  currency  has  been  thus  reduced,  it  has  been 
from  the  want  of  employment.  There  is,  perhaps,  more  spe- 
cie in  the  United  States  than  at  any  former  period  ;  but  it  is 
not  currency  while  it  is  unemployed.  Bank  notes  are  currency 
when  they  are  current  and  in  circulation  ;  but  while  they 
are  in  the  bank,  they  are  no  more  currency  than  if  they  had 
not  been  signed.  The  diminution  of  the  currency  is,  there-* 
fore,  not  owing  to  its  extinction,  but  to  the  want  of  use  and 
employment.  There  is  now  but  the  one  duty  for  it  to  per- 
form— remittance.  The  materials  of  currency  are  abundant, 
but  no  occupation  to  set  them  in  motion.  $65,000,000  has 
been  withdrawn  from  circulation,  because  there  has  ceased  to 
be  any  cause  to  produce  action.  In  1815,  the  production,  fabri- 
cation, and  distribution  of  the  country,  kept  $110,000,000  of 
currency  in  active  operation  ;  the  business  of  the  nation  re- 
quired it.  Now  it  is  reduced  to  $45,000.000,  for  this  plain 
reason  :  the  country  requires  no  more.  The  history  of  those 
three  disastrous  years,  will  tell  us  the  kind  of  business  which 
has  so  decreased  as  to  bring  about  such  consequences.  It  is 
not  the  business  of  importation  of  foreign  goods,  for  it  was 
never  so  great  ;  if  they  add  to  a  nation's  wealth,  riches  have 
indeed  flowed  over  the  land  without  stint.  It  is  not  the  bu- 
siness of  remittance  which  has  so  decreased  ;  so  far  as  that 
is  an  employment  for  currency,  it  still  continues  in  full  activ- 
ity, requiring  not  only  money,  but  bank  stock,  public  stock, 
book  debts,  notes,  bonds,  judgments  and  bankruptcies,  to  pay 
the  balance  against  us.  Unless  it  shall  be  first  made  to  ap- 
pear, that  the  state  of  our  foreign  trade  is  such  that  the  bal- 


1821.J  REPORT  ON  MANUFACTURES.  125 

4 

ance  sheet  is  in  favor  of  our  merchants,  that  the  foreign  man- 
ufacturers and  exporters  are  the  debtors  and  not  the  c-redit- 
ors  of  our  merchants,  foreign  importations  call  for  more  cur- 
rency. 

If  the  balance  of  trade  is  against  us,  and  more  remittance 
is  required,  then  there  is  one  employment  for  currency  left, 
and  the  reduction  is  not  for  the  want  of  importations  to  keep 
it  active.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  no  remittances 
due,  no  employment  for  the  currency,  the  falling  off  in  impor- 
tations may,  in  such  case,  be  put  down  as  one  leading  cause 
of  the  decrease  of  the  currency  and  growth  of  public  misery. 
It  solves  at  once  the  great  question  :  What  is  that  employ- 
ment of  currency  which  adds  to  and  secures  general  wealth, 
and  guards  against  poverty — imports,  or  exports  ;  foreign, 
or  domestic  manufactures  ?  It  is  a  subject  on  which  vol- 
umes have  been  and  will  be  written.  Authors,  reviewers, 
essayists,  statesmen,  and  printers,  can  never  convince  each 
other  by  any  thing  depending  on  reasoning.  But  there  is 
one  book  that  contains  the  convincing  argument  which  none 
can  resist — the  importer's  ledger.  If  the  excess  of  exports 
over  imports  is  the  measure  of  a  profitable  trade,  the  mer- 
chant's ledger  will  show  it,  he  being  the  only  person  .concerned 
in  the  trade.  If  he  pays  for  the  goods  imported,  his  and  the 
country's  profits  are  the  same.  Now  this  book  shows  whether 
the  excess  of  imports  or  of  exports  is  the  profit.  If  he  has 
paid  for  all  imports,  arid  has  a  balance  of  goods  on  hand,  or 
of  money  due  him,  the  trade  is  profitable.  To  settle  at  once 
this  great  controversy — to  exhibit  such  a  case  as  will  pre- 
vent a  recurrence  of  another  attempt  to  induce  Congress  to 
pass  a  law  which  shall  never  destroy  agriculture,  commerce, 
revenue,  and  all  the  interests  of  the  nation — let  the  importers 
of  foreign  goods  proudly  exhibit  their  balances  on  the  credit 
side,  if  they  exist  :  they  must  increase  their  credit,  and  con- 
vince Congress  that  importations  add  to  national  and  indi- 
vidual wealth.  The  Committee  would  withdraw  their  recom- 
mendation of  manufactures,  when  one  smallitem  of  information 
should  be  communicated.  For  what  purpose  are  stocks  sent 
to  Europe  ?  Why  are  foreign  collectors  seen  in  our  commer- 
cial cities  ?  property  sold  by  foreign  plaintiffs  and  assignees, 
and,  probabty,  not  an  instance  of  an.  importer's  insolvency 
without  foreign  creditors  in  the  schedule  ?  If  the  balance  is 
favorable,  why  is  not  opposition  silenced  where  it  is  so  easily 
done  ?  When  it  is  not  done,  the  fair  inference  is  that  it  can 
not  be  done.  It  may  then  be  conceded,  that  there  is  yet  en> 


126  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM  [Chap.  VL 

ployment  for  currency  in  remittances,  and  that  this  has  not 
been  the  source  of  its  useful  or  profitable  occupation. 

This  at  once  settles  the  great  mystery,  and  settles  the 
great  question.  It  points  to  that  use  and  circulation  which 
makes  the  amount  and  activity  of  currency  the  test  of  gen- 
eral prosperity — internal,  not  external.  It  accounts  for  the 
eagerness  of  foreign  nations,  foreign  artisans,  merchants 
abroad,  and  foreign  agents  among  us,  to  monopolize  that  cir- 
culation, from  hand  to  hand,  through  the  whole  round  of  in- 
ternal commerce,  which  gives  it  vigor  aud  profits.  It  ac- 
counts for  the  willingness  of  all  of  them  to  leave  to  us  the 
miserable  and  ruinous  circulation  of  currency  for  remittance 
to  them.  Foreign  writers  and  foreign  statesmen  may  well 
inculcate  on  or.rs  the  doctrine,  that  the  excess  of  imports 
over  exports  is  the  rate  of  profits.  Their  doctrines  are  like 
the  profits — sound  and  solid  to  the  nation  that  reaps  the 
benefit.  Whether  that  nation  is  the  one  which  pays,  or  the 
one  which  receives  ;  the  one  which  holds  the  coin,  or  the  one 
which  hears  it  jingle  ;  the  one  whose  currency  flows  in  a  tor- 
rent-like stream  beyond  its  jurisdiction,  never  to  return,  or 
the  one  whose  currency  becomes  a  steady,  gentle  current, 
meandering  through  every  occupation  within  the  great  circle 
of  national  industry,  giving  use  and  value  to  every  produc- 
tion, floating  to  every  market ; — the  state  of  the  currency 
and  of  the  nation  furnishes  convincing  proofs. 

It  is  then  no  longer  left  to  conjecture  why  this  country 
flourished  in  war,  and  has  become  depressed  in  peace  ;  why 
the  people  could  then  pay  the  Government  twelve  millions 
of  internal  taxes  a  year  from  sources  that  would  not  now 
furnish  one.  They  had  a  currency  ;  it  was  active  ;  it  reached 
every  man.  Manufactures  flourished  every  where  within  the 
sphere  of  their  operations  ;  all  the  agriculture  of  the  country 
flourished  with  them  ;  it  was  depressed  only  in  those  parts  of 
the  Union  be}rond  their  influence.  Profits  remained  where 
they  were  required  ;  they  were  impelled,  out  through  the  ar- 
teries, and  returned  through  the  veins.  Each  occupation, 
being  healthy  and  active,  aided  another  ;  and  their  united 
efforts  were  felt  by  the  nation.  And  where  manufactures  are 
yet  flourishing,  the  same  effects  are  still  felt.  The  sphere  of 
their  action  bounds  the  circle  of  circulation.  Beyond  that 
circle  there  is  scarcely  a  circulation  left,  except  in  the  cotton- 
growing  States.  There  it  continues,  because  foreign  policy, 
arid  the  interest  of  foreigners,  will  not  suffer  its  exclusion 
from  a  market.  But  in  all  the  grain-raising  States,  those 


1821.J  REPORT  ON  MANUFACTURES.  127 

abounding  in  raw  materials  for  manufactures,  and  popula- 
tion, fuel,  and  machinery  to  conduct  them,  the  prospect  is 
gloomy  indeed.  The  fertile  soil  of  the  interior  and  the  West 
produces  measureless  products  ;  roads,  canals,  and  noble 
rivers,  afford  infinite  means  of  distribution  ;  but  there  is  no 
market,  no  employment.  Foreign  systems  with  unresisted, 
unchecked  sway,  have  attained  the  command  of  our  consump- 
tion, deny  the  use  of  our  own  products,  monopojize  the  profits 
of  converting  rough  materials  into  manufactures,  and  would 
have  acquired  the  profits  of  their  distribution,  had  this  Gov- 
ernment "  let  it  alone.". 

The  report  replies  to  the  principal  objections  brought 
against  the  protective  system  ;  the  answer  to  only  one  or 
two  of  these  objections  will  be  given.  Says  the  report : — 

But  the  great  objection  to  the  bill — the  one  that  is  pressed 
in  all  the  memorials  as  the  foundation  of  all  the  opposition — 
is,  that  the  increase  of  duty  is,  of  course,  an  increase  of  the 
price  to  the  consumer.  This  is  admitted  to  be  true  as  to 
those  articles  the  sole  supply  of  which  is  by  importation,  but 
no  further  Even  here,  the  increase  of  price  accrues  to  the 
public  treasury.  It  can  not  go  to  the  manufacturer  till  he 
brings  his  products  to  market  and  sale.  Before  he  can  profit 
by  the  rise,  he  must  check  the  foreign  competition  by  ac- 
quiring a  part  of  the  supply  or  custom.  He  can  mt  do  this 
by  exacting  a  higher  price,  unless  the  quality  of  his  goods 
is  proportionally  better.  If  he  puts"  down  foreign  competi- 
tion, and  monopolizes  the  market,  it  must  be  done  by  making* 
better  or  selling  cheaper,  and  by  such  amount  as  will  equal 
the  freight  and  the  importer's  profit';  for  the  importation  will 
continue  while  the  article  will  yield  either.  If  the  market 
should  be  divided  between  foreign  and  domestic  supply,  it 
would  keep  both  at  the  same  price,  and,  while  this  continued, 
would  operate  as  a  tax  to  the  consumer  ;  and  it  would  be 
temporary  or  not,  as  the  country  would  have  the  means  of 
furnishing  a  sufficient  amount  for  the  demand.  If  it  would, 
and  the  price  afford  a  profit  to  the  maker,  the  competition 
must  cease,  by  reducing  the  price  so  as  to  exclude  the  foreign. 
If  the  country  could  not  produce  enough,  the  policy  of  im- 
posing more  than  a  revenue  duty  might  well  be  questioned. 
But  true  "  economy  to  the  consumer"  would  be  a  permanent 
.reduction  by  a  mere  temporary  increase  of  the  price.  There 
can,  then,  be  but  one  class  of  manufactures,  a  duty  on  which 
can  tend  to  the  benefit  of  the  manufacturer  at  the  expense  of 
the  consumer — that  of  which  a  competent  supply  can  not  be 


128  m        THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VL 

furnished  by  our  own  resources.  If  such  are  discernible  in 
the  proposed  measure,  they  ought  not  to  be  retained  for  the 
mere  emolument  of  the  manufacturer. 

The  great  articles  of  consumption  are  such  as  can  be  sup- 
plied from  our  own  soil,  and  by  the  employment  of  our  owa 
labor  and  machinery.  It  is  a  fact  which  can  not  be  too  often 
repeated,  which  has  been  verified  by  every  experiment,  con- 
firmed on  every  trial,  that,  when  the  domestic  market  has  been  secured 
to  the  domestic  manufacturer,  domestic  competition  has  reduced  the 
price  to  t/ie  consumer.  Every  family  in  the  country  which  con- 
sumes coarse  cotton  goods,  is  now  •  deriving  a  direct  and 
positive  advantage  from  the  highest  duty  on  any  manufac- 
tured article  in  the  present  tariff :  it  is  better  in  quality,  and 
obtained  at  a  cheaper  rate,  than  the  imported  article  was 
before  the  duty  was  laid.  No  theory,  no  argument,  can 
reason  away  this  fact  ;  it  carries  conviction  to  the  under- 
standing. This  is  not  a  solitary  item  in  our  experience  ; 
nails,  gunpowder,  umbrellas,  cotton  arid  wool  cards,  present 
the  same  results.  The  purchaser  finds  these  articles  at  a 
reduced  price,  without  asking  the  cause.  He  may  be  an 
active,  a  conscientious  opponent  of  the  encouragement  of 
domestic  manufactures.  He  may  have  heard  the  charge  of 
there  being  a  "  tax  on  the  many,  a  bounty  to  the  few,"  re- 
peated so  often,  that  it  has  become  impressed  upon  his  belief, 
while  he  is  deriving  a  pecuniary  gain  from  their  success. 
Thousands  are  reaping  the  profits  of  a  competition  among 
manufacturers  who  are  endeavoring  to  acquire  employment 
by  furnishing  a  good  and  cheap  supply,  while  they  are 
charged  with  conspiring  to  oppress.  As  to  many  articles,  of 
which  they  can  not  furnish  a  full  supply,  they  are  enabled  to 
check  foreign  exaction  ;  and  the  country,  without  appreci- 
ating it,  is  deriving  great  benefit  from  their  enterprise. 

Accompanying  this  report,  is  a  large  number  of  questions 
addressed,  for  information,  by  the  Committee  on  Manufactures 
to  the  Mercantile  Society  of  New  York,  with  the  answers 
of  the  Society.  In  answer  to  one  of  these  questions  they 
say  : 

Common  coarse  cottons,  such  as  are  manufactured  in  the 
United  States,  may  be  fairly  stated  to  be  50  per  cent,  lower 
than  in  1811,  and  are  much  superior  to  the  piece  goods  of  a 
similar  description  from  Calcutta. 

Cabinet  wares  are  greatly  superior,  and  full  25  per  cent, 
lower. 

Gunpowder,  25  to  50  per  cent,  lower. 


1821.]  REPORT  ON  MANUFACTURES.  129 

Umbrellas,  33  J  per  cent,  lower. 

Carriages,  50  per  cent,  lower. 

Hats,  25  per  cent,  lower. 

Boots  and  Shoes,  20  per  cent,  lower. 

Silver  ware  is  now  made  in  this  country  as  cheap  as  in 
London,  and  is  12|  per  cent,  lower  than  in  18 LI. 

We  will  only  add  a  few  extracts  from  the  answer  to  the 
objection,  that  the  encouragement  of  manufactures  injures 
agriculture  :  it  is  called  coercion — a  forcing  from  one  occu 
pation  to  another.  During  the  late  war,  manufactures 
flourished  ;  farmers  were  not  forced  from  their  occupation. 
The  planter  of  the  South  was  not  prevented  from  raising  cot- 
ton ;  he  had  no  foreign  market,  but  he  had  a  domestic  one. 
But  he  felt  the  practical  difference  between  a  market  at  home 
and  one  abroad.  The  land  transportation  from  the  place  of 
production  to  the  place  of  manufacture  and  back  again,  taught 
him  how  much  of  the  value  of  the  raw  material,  to  him,  was 
diminished  by  the  intermediate  expenses.  Had  their  manu- 
factories been  at  home,  had  the  same  persons  who  then 
established  them  at  the  North  erected  them  at  the  South,  it 
would  have  been  called  no  forcing  of  occupation,  no  tax  on 
agriculture.  One  pound  of  cotton  will  now  pay  for  one  yard 
of  cotton  cloth.  When  it  shall  appear  that,  before  the  estab- 
lishment of  our  cotton  manufactories,  or  since  their  decline, 
a  pound  of  cotton  has  produced  more  to  the  raiser,  it  will  be 
time  to  answer  any  additional  objections  of  this  kind. 

It  may  be  asserted  with  truth,  that,  wherever  the  principle 
has  been  fairly  tried,  it  has  been  found  that  the  interests  of 
the  farmer  and  the  manufacturer  have  leen  completely  identified  :  one 
rises  and  falls  with  the  other.  This  is  verified,  not  only  by  per- 
sonal observation,  but,  in  the  most  impressive  manner,  by  the 
petitions  presented  to  Congress.  Last  year  thousands  of 
farmers  asked  you  for  protection  to  manufactures.  They 
were  from  States,  in  all  of  which  their  practical  effects  had 
been  seen  and  felt  for  3rears.  With  all  the  efforts  used  to 
excite  opposition  and  alarm  during  the  present  year,  it  is  a 
remarkable  fact,  that,  in  the  whole  scope  of  country  from 
Maryland  to  New  Hampshire,  a  solitary  petition,  memorial, 
or  remonstrance  of  farmers  has  not  been  offered  in  opposition 
to  the  proposed  tariff.  Those  which  have  been  presented  are 
from  parts  of  the  country  where  manufactures  never  were  in 
operation,  and  where  no  correct  opinion  could  be  formed  of 
their  effects. 

No  portion  of  the  community  is  more  injuriously  affect 

6* 


130  ;  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VI. 

by  changes  in  the  policy  of  a  country  than  the  farmers  ;  none 
have  suffered  more  seriously  by  the  repeal  of  the  duties  im- 
posed during  the  war  ;  none  felt  more  practically  the  depend- 
ence on  a  foreign  market  for  their  means  of  exchange.  While 
they  were  at  his  door,  the  price  of  goods  did  not  affect  him  ; 
produce  and  cotton  rose  together  ;  the  same  quantity  of  one 
would  still  buy  the  same  amount  of  the  other.  Now  the 
scene  is  changed  ;  goods  remain  at  the  same  prices,  but  it 
takes  three  or  four  times  the  quantity  of  produce  to  purchase 
the  same  amount.  Till  goods  fall  as  much  as  grain,  or  grain 
rises  to  the  price  of  goods,  the  farmer  pays  200  or  800  per 
cent,  more  for  them,  though  they  may  be  quoted  at  the  old 
nominal  rates.  lie  who,  in  other  times,  could  pay  for  his  iron 
by  produce,  of- by  the  use  of  his  teams  when  their  labor  was 
not  required  on  his  farm,  can  now  estimate  the  difference  be- 
tween buying  at  the  forge  and  at  the  store.  When  iron  was 
under  a  duty  of  32J  per  cent.,  personal  observation  did  not 
cause  the  objection  that  it  forced  the  farmer  from  his  occu- 
pation, or  made  it  less  profitable.  WThen,  by  the  existing 
tariff,  it  was  reduced  from  30  per  cent,  to  $9  per  ton,  it 
neither  gave  new  employment,  ncr  increased  profits  to  agri- 
culture. 

In  extending  the  observation  to  all  other  articles  of  which 
our  country  furnishes  the  raw  material,  or  which,  when  made 
at  home,  could  be  paid  for  in  provisions,  it  is  thought  to  be 
fully  justified  by  the  melancholy  experience  of  the  last  four 
years.  It  has  pointed  out  to  the  farmer  in  what  true  economy 
consists.  It  has  taught  hirn  what  is  cheap  and  what  is  dear  ; 
the  difference  between  a  market  at  his  door,  and  one  in  a 
foreign  country.  The  books  of  the  merchants,  the  dockets  of 
justices  and  courts,  tell  a  story  that  all  can  understand.  It 
was  not  so  when  manufactures  flourished  ;  it  will  not  continue 
so  when  they  revive.  The  farmer  will  be  the  first  to  profit 
by  the  change. 

It  is  said,  this  new  market  can  not  be  afforded  ;  the  farmer 
now  feeds  all  our  population,  and  can  feed  no  more  in  any 
event.  If  this  remark  were  true,  it  could  only  apply  to  pro- 
visions. The  production  of  raw  materials  which  have  now 
no  value  ;  the  extraction  of  ores  and  minerals  from  the  earth, 
which  now  will  not  pay  the  expense  ;  the  supply  of  fuel, 
which  is  rioxv  useK  ss  :  the  increased  demand  for  potash  and 
dye-stuffs,  for  the  various  small  items  of  the  produce  of  the 
farm,  which,  though  not  necessaries,  are  comforts,  and  may 
add  materially  to  the  farmer's  market,  as  the  same'  popula- 


1821.  j  REPORT  ON  AGRICULTURE.  131 

tion  has  greater  means  of  payment ; — all  tend  to  enlarge  his 
means  of  exchange,  his  sources  of  occupation.  The  mere 
necessaries  of  life  are  few  in  number  and  low  in  value  ;  their 
production  is  not  the  most  profitable  employment  of  agricul- 
ture. The  garden,  the  orchard,  the  dairy,  and  the  poultry 
yard,  the  sty  and  the  stall,  afford  more  profit  arid  require  less 
labor  than  the  grain  field.  The  market  for  their  production 
depends  not  on  the  mere  amount  of  population,  but  the 
means  of  that  population  to  extend  their  purchases  beyond 
necessaries  to  comforts  and  luxuries.  The  supply  of  these 
is  the  farmer's  profit.  The  raising  of  them  employs  the  labor 
and  attention  of  children,  (who  are  of  little  use  in  the  field,) 
by  occupations  in  which  are  combined  health,  pleasure,  econo- 
my, and  industry. 

Among  the  memorials  against  the  tariff,  was  one  from  the 
United  Agricultural  Societies,  of  a  number  of  certain  coun- 
ties of  Virginia,  which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Ag- 
riculture. 

Mr.  Forrest,  of  Pennsylvania,  from  that  Committee,  made 
a  report  to  the  House  adverse  to  the  proposed  increase  of  du- 
ties, and  in  answer  to  arguments  of  the  advocates  of  protec- 
tion. One  of  these  arguments  is  that  which  is  derived  from 
the  productive  power  of  manufacturing,  and  the  inducements 
which  the  quick  returns  of  the  home  trade,  our  command  of 
the  chief  materials  for  manufacturing,  and  other  propitious 
circumstances,  hold  out  to  the  capitalist.  The  committee 
consider  these  as  so  many  reasons  against  any  interference 
of  law.  If  the  times  and  circumstances  have  a  natural  ten- 
dency to  promote  the  objects  desired,  why  should  we  seek  to 
obtain  them  prematurely,  and  by  oppressive  means  ? 

Another  argument,  says  the  report,  has  been  founded  on 
the  propriety  of  relieving  those  who  were  induced,  by  the 
state  of  things  growing  out  of  the  late  war  and  the  measures 
which  preceded  it,  to  vest  their  capital  in  manufactures,  and 
who  are  now  suffering  for  want  of  protection.  The  Govern- 
ment is  not  bound  to  indemnify  its  citizens  for  all  losses  that 
can  be  remotely  connected  with  its  acts.  Such  a  principle 
would  furnish  just  as  good  a  claim  for  relief  to  the  farmer 
arid  the  merchant  as  to  the  manufacturer. 

Another  argument  is,  that  although  the  system  of  free  trade 
might  be  the  best,  provided  other  nations  would  pursue  it ; 
yet,  if  they  will  not  buy  of  us,  we  should  not  buy  of  them, 
but  should  meet  regulation  by  regulation,  restriction  by  re- 
striction. So  far  from  its  being  contemplated  by  the  manu« 


132  TUE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VI. 

facturers  to  coerce  other  nations  to  relinquish  their  restric- 
tions, it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  such  an  event  would 
occasion  great  regret,  because  it  would  take  away  one  of 
the  principal  arguments  on  which  they  have  relied  for  the 
adoption  of  their  policy.  But  in  whatever  the  advice  "  not 
to  buy  of  foreigners  unless  they  will  buy  of  us,"  may  have 
originated,  it  is  worse  than  useless.  How  is  it  possible  that 
we  should  buy  of  them  unless  they  buy  of  us  ?  The  very 
word  "  buy"  implies  that  something  is  given  in  exchange  for 
that  which  is  received  ;  and  what  is  giving  in  exchange  but 
buying  ?  That  foreigners  do  not  admit  our  products  on  the 
same  terms  that  we  admit  theirs,  does  not  render  it  less  true 
that,  in  our  intercourse  with  them,  there  is  a  complete  ex- 
change of  equivalents.  Undoubtedly  the  foreign  system  is 
injurious  to  us,  and  it  is  certainly  not  less  so  to  themselves. 
As  long  as  capital  continues  to  be  employed  in  the  foreign 
trade,  it  can  only  be  because  it  is  more  profitably  employed 
than  it  could  be  if  it  were  withdrawn.  It  would  be  very  un- 
wise, because  a  portion  of  our  capital  is  not  so  advantage- 
ously employed  as  it  might  be  under  possible  circumstances, 
to  make  it  less  so  than  it  is  ;  because  we  cannot  make  things 
better,  to  make  them  worse. 

Another  argument  has  been  founded  on  the  encourage- 
ment which,  it  is  alleged,  has  been  given  by  Congress  to  ag- 
riculture and  commerce,  and  which,  it  is  urged,  affords  an 
equitable  claim  for  encouragement  to  manufactures.  It  will 
hardly  be  asserted  that  agriculture  and  commerce  have  re- 
ceived greater  aids  from  Government  than  manufactures. 
With  respect  to  agriculture,  it  is  not  admitted  that  Govern- 
ment has  rendered  it  any  service  whatever  ;  and  it  is  more- 
over believed  that  it  cannot  render  it  any  service,  unless  it  be 
to  remove  the  restrictions  which  oppress  it.*  With  regard  to 
commerce,  it  is  alleged  that  it  has  been  encouraged  in  two 
wa}7s — by  a  navy,  and  by  a  system  of  commercial  regula- 


*  The  writer  of  this  report,  could  not,  of  course,  expect  our  Government 
to  repeal  the  British  "corn  laws,'"  and  the  restrictive  acts  of  other  foreign 
nations,  by  which  American  agriculture  was  oppressed  in  foreign  markets. 
It  was  the  opinion  of  Washington,  Hamilton,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe, 
Jackson,  and  other  American  statesmen,  of  no  mean  rank,  that  the  most 
effectual  way  to  relieve  our  agriculture  from  oppressive  restrictions,  was 
to  cieate  a  home  market,  which  was  to  be  preferred  to  a  foreign,  Ix-causo 
it  wns  "  more  certain,"  and  not  liable  to  be  affected  by  the  legislation  of 
foreign  countries.  This  was  to  be  do;:p  by  countervailing  duties  upon  for- 
eign goods ;  in  other  words,  by  the  protection  of  domestic  manufactures. 


1821.J  REPORT  ON  AGRICULTURE.  133 

tions.  The  true  and  legitimate  purpose  of  a  navy  is  the  na- 
tional defense  ;  but  if  the  navy  can  be  considered,  in  airf  de- 
gree, as  intended  to  protect  commerce,  it  is  evidently  in- 
tended to  protect  it,  not  against  competition,  but  against  vi- 
olence ;  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  navy,  and  the 
army  too,  would  be  employed  to  protect  manufactures  if  they 
were  assailed  by  violence.  Whether  those  regulations  and 
acts  were  intended  to  encourage  the  commerce  and  naviga- 
tion of  the  country,  or  involve  a  departure  from  the  maxims 
of  letting  things  alone,  and  of  not  taxing  one  class  for  the  sup- 
port of  another,  the  Committee  are  not  called  on  now  to  de- 
cide ;  but,  passing  over  the  navigation  laws,  that  they  were 
intended  to  be  subservient  to  national  defense,  by  creating  a 
nursery  for  our  seamen,  and  regarding  them  purely  as  com- 
mercial regulations,  the  encouragement  they  are  designed  to 
afford  to  commerce  and  navigation,  differs,  both  in  nature 
and  degree,  from  that  which  has  been  already  given,  arid 
which  it  is  proposed  still  further  to  extend  to  manufactures. 
A  nation  adopting  a  restrictive  system  with  a  view  of  co- 
ercing another  nation  to  abandon  it,  is  very  different  from 
its  adopting  it  as  a  permanent  part  of  its  policy,  under  the 
delusive  idea  of  promoting  national  wealth  and  independence. 
It  proposes  only  to  forego  present  for  the  sake  of  future  and 
greater  advantages. 

The  Committee  repeat  a  common  argument,  that,  whenev- 
er one  employment  becomes  more  profitable  than  another, 
capital  will  desert  the  less  for  the  more  profitable.  Every 
such  change,  however,  is  attended  with  the  loss,  generally,  . 
of  the  whole  of  the  fixed,  and  a  portion  of  the  circulating 
capital  of  the  deserted  occupation.  But  it  is  easy  to  perceive 
that  a  duty  on  a  single  article  may  occasion  the  loss  of  sev- 
eral such  capitals.  If,  for  example,  by  a  duty  on  foreign 
boots  and  shoes,  we  prevent  a  certain  quantity  from  being 
brought  into  the  country,  we  immediately  destroy  the  mar- 
ket for  the  commodities  which  were  given  in  exchange  for 
them  ;  and  if  this  is  a  manufactured  article,  we  destroy  the 
market  for  the  agricultural  product,  which  constitutes  its 
basis  ;  so  that  the  loss  falls  ultimately  on  agriculture.*  Now 

*  This  illustration,  as  well  as  the  inference  of  the  Committee,  seems  to 
be  based  upon  the  assumed  fact,  that  there  is  an  unrestricted  trade  be- 
tween the  two  countries,  and  that  there  is  a  ready  market  abroad  for  ag- 
ricultural  products.  But  when  there  is  no  foreign  remunerative  market, 
or  none  at  all,  for  the  "  commodities"  which  the  farmer  has  to  give  in  ex- 


134  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VI. 

if  the  agriculturists  who  are  thus  thrown  out  of  employment, 
become  boot  and  shoemakers,  there  would  be  the  loss  of  only 
one  capital  ;  but  if,  as  is  more  probable,  they  should  apply 
themselves  to  some  other  branch  of  agricultural  industry,  as 
being  more  analagous  to  their  recent  occupation,  and  for 
the  same  reason,  the  additional  boots  and  shoes  required  were 
made  by  labor  and  capital  taken  from  the  saddle  and  harness 
business,  there  would  be  the  loss  of  two  capitals.  It  is  not 
difficult  to  perceive  that  the  loss  might  be  extended  to  a 
greater  number. 

The  Committee  object  further,  to  the  system  of  protection, 
that  it  tends  to  diminish  production,  and,  of  course,  accumu- 
lation :  also,  that  the  increased  cost  of  consumption,  which 
is  one  of  the  means  by  which  this  effect  is  produced,  will  af- 
fect chiefly  the  laboring  classes  and  the  raisers  of  raw  pro- 
duce. Everything  on  which  the  wages  of  labor  are  expended, 
except  the  products  of  agriculture,  will  rise  in  price  ;  but  la- 
bor itself  cannot  rise,  and  may  fall,  for  the  demand  for  labor 
created  by  the  new  employments  will  be  more  than  supplied 
by  that  thrown  out  of  the  old  ones  ;  and  thus  the  comforts  of 
the  laborer,  who  will  have  to  purchase  dearer  with  smaller 
means,  will  be  materially  impaired.  It  is  thought,  too,  that 
the  value  of  money  must  be  proportionally  higher  in  a  coun- 
try which  pursues  this  system  ;  and  this  is  another  circum- 
stance which  must  injuriously  affect  the  wages  of  labor.*  In 
the  infancy  of  manufactures,  too,  the  coarser  kinds  being  first 

change  for  his  boots  ;  in  other  words,  if  the  foreign  bootmaker  will  not 
receive  the  fanner's  pro  luce  in  payment,  it  is  not  easy  to  perceive  how  the 
farmer  would  bo  injured  by  the  encouragement  of  the  manufacture,  not  of 
boots  onlv,  but  other  articles,  and  by  the"  creating  of  a  market  for  his  pro- 
duce in  his  neighborhood. 

*It  is  doubtful  whether  many  political  economists  of  note  would  have 
concurred  in  the  opinion  of  the  Committee,  that  creating  a  demand  for  la- 
bor in  a  new  employment,  would  injure  agriculture,  or  otherwise  "  inju- 
riously affect  the  wanes  of  labor."  This,  it  is  believed,  will  be  generally 
regarded  as  a  novel  doctrine — the  reverse  of  that  which  has  been  taught 
by  our  ablest  statesmen,  before  and  since  the  writing  of  this  report.  One 
of  them  expresses  hit>  views  thus  clearly  on  the  subject :  "  Draw  from 
agriculture  this  superabundant  labor;  employ  it  in  mechanism  and  man- 
ufactures ;  thereby  creating  a  home  market  for  your  bread  stuffs,  and  dis- 
tributing labor  to  UK-  most  profitable  account,  and  benefits  to  the  country 
will  result.  Take  from  agriculture  in  the  United  States  600,000  men,  wo- 
men, and  children,  and  you  will  at  once  give  a  home  market  for  moro 
bread  stuffs  than  all  Europe  now  furnishes  us." — Jacktorit  letter  to  Dr< 
OUtnan,  April  26,  1824. 


1821.]  REPORT  ON  AGRICULTURE.  135 

produced,  the  tax  is  chiefly  borne  by  the  poor  who  consume 
them.  This  evil  is  increased,  too,  by  imposing  higher  duties 
on  the  coarser  than  on  the  finer  manufactures.  To  tax  the 
poor  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor  would  be  bad  enough  ;  but 
to  tax  them  for  the  benefit  of  the  rich  is  intolerable. 

The  report  mentions,  as  among  the  evils  of  the  proposed 
measure,  that  it  would  diminish  consumption,  and,  conse- 
quently, diminish  production,  by  diminishing  the  price  of  ag- 
ricultural produce — an  effect  directly  the  reverse  of  that 
which  is  anticipated  by  the  advocates  of  the  system. 

Another  source  of  loss,  say  the  Committee,  is  the  tendency 
of  the  system  to  drive  commercial  capital  abroad  ;  and  this 
it  will  much  more  probably  do  than  attract  manufacturing- 
capital  hither,  as  well  from  the  superior  facility  of  its  removal, 
as  from  the  distrust  which  the  system  is  calculated  to  pro- 
duce in  the  equity  of  the  Government  and  stability  of  its 
policy. 

A  still  more  alarming  effect  of  the  system  will  be  to  drive 
population  and  capital  from  one  State  to  another.  The  poorer 
agriculturists  of  the  Atlantic  States,  will  be  compelled,  by 
the  increased  cost  of  consumption,  and  the  diminished  price 
of  produce,  to  go  to  the  West  in  search  of  more  fertile  lands  ; 
whilst  capitalists  will  go  to  those  States  where  manufactures 
arc  best  established  arid  most  flourish. 

A  still  further  source  of  loss  is  in  the  effect  of  this  system 
to  drive  capital  from  one  kind  of  manufactures  to  another. 
The  manufactures  that  languish  will  be  deserted  for  those 
that  flourish,  or  they  must  be  continually  bolstered  up  by 
new  protection.  Indeed,  even  the  manufactures  that  are 
best  established  must  be  sustained  in  this  way,  if,  as  is  very 
possible,  by  the  invention  of  new  machinery,  or  by  any  other 
means  which  will  diminish  the  cost  of  production,  foreigners 
can  come  again  into  the  market,  and,  in  spite  of  the  duties, 
undersell  the  American  manufacturer.  This  is  one  of  the 
most  vexatious  effects  of  the  system.  It  will  never  be  done 
with,  but  new  exactions  will  be  perpetually  made. 

It  is  not  believed,  say  the  Committee,  that  any  circum- 
stances exist  which  will  justify  the  United  States  in  adopt- 
ing the  proposed  system.  To  propose  to  increase  the  wealth 
of  the  nation  by  increasing  its  taxes,  is  enough  to  revolt  the 
understandings  of  ordinary  men  ;  yet  it  seems  that  a  mode 
of  doing  this  has  been  discovered,  and  that  the  whole  mys- 
tery lies  in  calling  that  which  was  before  called  tax — tariff. 
In  the  opinion  of  the  Gommittee,  it  is  the  worst  kind  of  tax, 


}36  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VL 

carried  to  the  extent  that  is  proposed  ;  and  it  would  be  much 
better  to  raise  a  sum  of  money  by  direct  taxes  at  once,  and 
distribute  it  in  bounties  among  the  manufacturers.  We 
should  then  escape  at  least  some  of  the  oppressive  effects  of 
the  system. 

We  give  but  one  more  objection  of  the  Committee.  They 
say  :  If  we  give  to  manufactures  all  the  activity  which  they 
must  derive  from  the  agricultural  and  commercial  classes  be- 
ing taxed  to  support  them,  we  must  in  time  become  exporters 
of  manufactures.  When  this  takes  place,  will  we  not  be  ex- 
posed to  all  and  greater  inconveniences,  than  we  now  are 
from  the  refusal  of  foreigners  to  receive  our  raw  produce  ? 
Which  would  be  most  apt  to  suffer  from  vicissitudes  in  the 
affairs  of  a  country — a  nation  engaged  in  producing  the  first 
necessaries  of  life  ?  or  one  engaged'  in  producing  luxuries  ? 
One  empk>3red  in  producing  commodities  subject  to  the  ca- 
prices of  taste  and  fashion  ?  or  one  employed  in  producing 
those  which  are  essential  to  human  existence?  One  pursu* 
ing  occupations  with  facility?  or  one  pursuing  those  which 
can  be  changed  only  with  great  difficulty  and  loss  ?  mWhat 
it  isf  asked,  would  have  been  the  situation  of  England — where 
would  have  been  her  independence — if  Napoleon  had  suc- 
ceeded in  carrying  into  effect  his  continental  system  ?  And 
now,  since  this  system  has  been  partially  adopted  by,  the 
continental  nations  of  Europe  and  by  ourselves,  is  not  this 
destruction  of  the  markets  for  her  manufactures,  next  to 
taxation,  the  principal  cause  of  the  distress  of  that  nation  ? 

In  the  Senate,  no  report  was  made  on  this  subject.  A 
number  of  memorials,  however,  were  presented  to  that  body, 
strongly  remonstrating  against  the  proposed  increase  of  du- 
ties. One  was  from  the  merchants  and  other  inhabitants  of 
Petersburg,  Va.  ;  one  from  a  convention  of  delegates  from 
the  commercial  and  agricultural  sections  of  the  State  of 
Maine  ;  one  from  a  convention  of  merchants  and  others  in- 
terested in  commerce,  assembled  at  Philadelphia  ;  one  from 
the  citizens  of  Charleston,  S.  C.  ;  and  several  others  :  also 
one  from  the  auctioneers  of  the  city  of  New  York,  against 
duties  on  sales  at  auction. 

The  arguments  of  the  memorialists  are  in  their  nature  the 
same  as  those  which  have  been  already  given  from  the 
speeches,  reports,  and  memorials  in  this  and  preceding 
chapters  ;  as,  "forcing1  a  people  to  manufacture  what  it  is 
cheaper  to  buy  abroad  ;"  "  importing  less  than  we  export  is 
no  evidence  of  prosperity  ;  capital  being  only  exchanged 


1821.]  REPORT  ON  AGRICULTURE.  137 

for  a  more  valuable  consideration,"  and  "  importers  and  con- 
sumers both  benefited  by  the  importation  ;"  "  duties  oppres- 
sive -to  the  poor  and  laboring  classes  ;"  "  embarrassing  to 
commerce  ;"  "  increased  duties  would  diminish  the  revenue, 
and  compel  a  resort  to  direct  taxation  ;"  "  national  industry 
is  invigorated  by  free  trade,  and  depressed  by  every  thing 
opposed  to  it  ;"  and  a  reference  to  British  writers  advising 
our  Government  not  to  imitate  the  restrictive  policy  of  their 
own  : — these  constitute  the  burden  of  the  memorials. 

In  1822,  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  reported  cer- 
tain alterations  of  duties  on  imports  and  tunnage,  with  a  view, 
chiefly,  to  an  increase  of  the  revenue  ;  but  the  bill  was  not 
passed.  A  general  revision  of  the  tariff  was  not  attempted 
until  the  session  of  1823-1824. 


138  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.   VII 


CHAPTER    VII. 

The  condition  of  the  country.      Tariff  bill  reported  by  Mr.  Tod.      Debate  on  the 
bill.    Votes  on  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

THE  business  of  the  country,  which  had  been  for  years  in 
a  languishing  condition,  had  reached  a  "  crisis"  before  the 
meeting  of  Congress  in  December,  1823.  The  National  Intel- 
ligencer, published  at  Washington,  spoke  of  "  the  general 
pressure  which  has  weighed  with  so  heavy  a  hand  on  all 
classes  of  life,  and  all  the  pursuits  of  business  throughout  the 
country."  A  board  of  business  men  at  Philadelphia  alluded  to 
the  "  mercantile  embarrassments  which  have  been  so  seriously 
felt  by  persons  of  all  ranks  in  society,  and  the  miseries  of 
poverty  which  have  invaded  the  fire-sides  of  so  many  respect- 
able fellow-citizens.'7 

In  Niles'  Register,  the  state  of  things  is  thus  described 
"  Agriculture  is,  in  general,  in  a  languid  state,  and,  in  many 
parts  of  the  Union,  suffers  highly.  Cotton-planting,  for  two 
years,  has  been  at  a  low  ebb.  Farming,  in  consequence  of 
the  present  temporary  high  price  of  wheat,  is  better  than  to- 
bacco or  cotton-planting,  near  the  convenience  of  navigation  ; 
but  in  the  Western  States  and  in  the  interior  of  Pennsylvania, 
it  is  ve~y  much  depressed.  Manufactures,  except  cotton 
spinning  and  weaving,  protected  by  duties,  and  except  a  few 
other  branches,  are  greatly  depressed.  The  woolen  manufac- 
ture is  greatly  depressed  throughout  the  Union  and  particu- 
larly in  Pennsylvania.  Several  of  the  factories  are  closed, 
and  all  their  hands  discharged.  Others  are  but  partially 
employed.  Commerce  in  general  languishes.  It  is  quite 
overdone.  There  is  scarcely  a  quarter  of  the  globe  to  which 
the  productions  of  this  country  can  be  exported  with  a  cer- 
tainty, or  even  any  great  probability  of  advantage,  or  from 
•which  importation  can  be  beneficially  made.  The  importa- 
tion of  dry  goods,  once  a  source  of  great  profit  to  a  respecta- 
ble class  of  citizens,  has  changed  its  character,  and  is,  at 
least,  as  frequently  a  losing  as  a  profitable  concern  ;  the 
markets  being  almost  constantly  glutted  with  dry  goods, 
shipped  on  account  of  foreirrn  merchants  and  manufacturers. 

"  Our  wealthy  citizens  find  it  difficult  to  employ  their  capi- 


1824.]  TARIFF  BILL  OF  MR.  TOD.  139 

tals  advantageously.  Parents  in  genteel  life  are  extremely 
straitened  to  provide  suitable  occupations  for  their  sons,  so 
as  to  afford  them  a  reasonable  prospect  of  procuring  a  com- 
fortable support  in  future  life.  Those  in  humble  spheres  find 
it  nearly  equally  difficult  to  provide  trades  for  their  sons  ; 
as,  from  the  general  stagnation  of  business,  tradesmen  are 
unwilling  to  take  apprentices.  Numbers  of  the  poorer  classes 
in  our  cities,  are  wholly  destitute  of  employment,  though 
many  of  them  are  willing  to  work  for  half  wages,  or  their 
victuals.  The  number  of  impoverished  debtors,  who  take  the 
benefit  of  the  insolvent  act,  is  lamentably  increasing." 

Congress  met  on  the  1st  day  of  December,  1823.  President 
Monroe  had,  in  his  last  annual  message,  called  the  attention 
of  Congress  to  the  subject  of  manufactures.  He  said  :  "  On 
full  consideration  of  the  subject,  in  all  its  relations,  I  am  per- 
suaded, that  a  further  augmentation  may  now  be  made  of 
the  duties  on  certain  foreign  articles  in  favor  of  our  own, 
and  without  affecting,  injuriously,  any  other  interests/'  He 
says  in  the  present  message  : 

"  Having  communicated  my  views  to  Congress,  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  last  session,  respecting  the  encouragement 
which  ought  to  be  given  to  our  manufactures,  I  have  only  to 
add,  that  those  views  remain  unchanged,  and  that  the  present 
state  of  those  countries  with  which  we  have  the  most  imme- 
diate political  relations,  and  greatest  commercial  intercourse, 
tends  to  confirm  them.  Under  this  impression,  I  recommend 
a  review  of  the  tariff  for  the  purpose  of  affording  such  addi- 
tional protection  to  those  articles  which  we  are  prepared  to 
manufacture,  or  which  are  more  immediately  connected  with 
the  defense  and  independence  of  the  country." 

Mr.  Tod,  of  Pa.,  from  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  on 
the  9th  of  January,  1824,  reported  a  tariff  bill,  which  was,  on 
the  10th  of  February,  taken  up  in  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
On  the  llth, 

Mr.  T.  commenced  the  debate  by  a  brief  explanation  of  the 
bill,  and  by  stating  its  details  and  objects,  and  some  of  the 
reasons  in  its  favor.  It  proposed  nothing  new  in  principle, 
he  said — nothing  but  to  extend  and  equalize  a  system  which 
experience  had  shown  to  be  most  beneficial,  and  to  give  to 
other  departments  of  domestic  industry,  and  other  oppressed 
portions  of  the  community,  something  of  that  protection 
which  our  laws  had  so  liberally  and  wisely  given  to  the 
cultivators  of  cotton,  of  sugar,  and  to  all  the  interests  of  na- 
vigation. 


140  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VII. 

One  object  of  the  bill,  said  Mr.  T.,  is,  that,  as  to  some  cer- 
tain manufactured  articles,  the  raw  materials  of  which  exist 
in  abundance  at  home,  we  should,  by  legislative  provision, 
give  to  our  own  workmen,  not  the  exclusive  supply  and 
command  of  even  our  own  market  ;  but  barely  to  give  them 
a  part  of  the  business  of  furnishing  our  own  people  with  the 
plain,  rough  necessaries  of  life.  Another  object  of  equal  im- 
portance was,  that,  instead  of  continuing  to  support  the  agri- 
culturists of  Europe  in  almost  every  thing,  we  may  be 
compelled,  by  using  more  home  manufactured  articles,  to 
give  to  the  farmers  of  our  own  country  some  market  for  their 
products.  And  another  object,  not  inferior  in  magnitude  to 
either  of  the  former  two,  is  to  give  to  the  country  that 
strength  and  power  which  arises  from  possessing,  within 
itself,  the  means  of  defense,  and  to  rescue  it  from  the  danger 
and  disgrace  of  habitual  reliance  upon  foreign  nations  for  the 
common  daily  necessaries  of  life. 

It  is  known  that  almost  every  State  in  the  Union  is  capa- 
ble of  producing  iron  sufficient  for  the  supply  of  its  owu 
population,  and  many  of  them  a  great  deal  more  ;  and  that 
this  can  be  effected  without  taking  a  single  hand  from  any 
profitable  employment,  and  without  any  stimulus  except  that 
of  a  market. 

Mr.  T.  mentioned  a  numerous  list  of  articles  whicli  our 
country  was  adapted  to  produce,  and  the  manufacture  of 
which  had  flourished  to  a  considerable  extent  during  the  war. 
They  also  caused  the  country  to  flourish,  by  giving  employ- 
ment to  the  industrious,  a  market  to  the  farmer,  value  to 
property,  life  to  every  sort  of  valuable  business.  Peace  came, 
and,  shortly  after,  came  the  new  tariff,  which,  in  the  then 
present  situation  of  the  country,  afforded  inadequate  en- 
couragement to  manufactures  generally.  He  said,  what  in 
1816  was  called  a  moderate  protecting  duty,  would  scarcely 
have  been  adequate  protection  against  a  fair  and  liberal 
European  competition,  but  was  absolutely  nothing  against 
the  little  tricks  of  oppression  by  which  wealthy  foreign  man- 
ufacturers can  afford  to  throw  away  cargoes  of  their  goods, 
at  reduced  prices,  or  at  no  prices,  in  order  to  break  down  a 
growing  rival,  and  indemnify  themselves  by  fleecing  the 
whole  country  afterwards. 

Mr.  T.  alluded  to  the  arguments  which  had  been  urged  in 
1816  against  protection  to  domestic  industry.  The  question 
was  said  to  be  one  merely  between  our  own  manufacturers 
on  the  one  side,  and  all  the  remaining  classes  of  our  own 


1B24.J  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  141 

people  on  the  other.  Then  there  was  the  cry  about  taxing 
the  many  for  the  benefit  of  the  few,  and  monopoly.  But  what 
had  the  chief  effect  in  destroying  our  manufactures,  and 
almost  bringing  us  back  into  colonial  bondage,  was  that 
theory  of  foreign  speculative  writers,  called  political  econo- 
mists. This  doctrine  teaches  that  all  interference  like  the 
present,  by  legislation,  has  merely  the  effect  to  force  capital 
from  one  employment  to  another.  That  this  forcing  can  only 
be  from  an  employment  more  productive  into  one  less  produc- 
tive, to  the  certain  injury  to  the  community.  The  argument 
prevailed.  We  have  seen  its  effects. 

Under  this  tariff,  said  Mr.  T.,  first  went  all  the  newly 
erected  manufactories  of  earthen  ware.  They  and  their 
Workmen  are  now  no  more  talked  of  than  if  they  never  had 
existed.  In  the  same  way  went  most  of  our  glass  factories, 
our  manufactures  of  white  and  red  lead,  our  woolens,  our 
hemp.  Domestic  iron  has  lingered  a  while  longer,  and  still 
holds  a  feeble  existence,  dwindling  every  year,  and  gradually 
sinking  under  foreign  importations.  All  the  devastations 
and  losses  of  the  war  were  nothing  compared  with  the  devas- 
tations and  losses  of  manufacturing  capital  under  the  tariff 
of  1816. 

Thus,  for  these  plain,  common  necessaries,  which  our  own 
country  is  so  competent  to  produce,  lead,  hemp,  earthen  wares, 
woolen  goods,  and  unmanufactured  iron,  we  go  on  paying  a 
tribute  to  foreigners,  of  more  than  $13,000,000  a  year  ;  and 
from  a  visionary  fear  of  forcing  capital  into  an  unproductive 
channel,  by  protecting  domestic  industry,  we  have  ended  by 
forcing  our  own  manufacturing  capital  into  non-existence, 
and  our  workmen  into  beggary.  And  who  is  benefited  ?  Not 
the  farmer.  His  share  of  the  gains  from  the  suppression  of 
manufactures,  is  only  to  have  the  produce  of  his  farm  left 
perishing  on  his  hands  for  want  of  a  market.  As  little  has 
the  merchant  gained,  whose  profits  have  been  sinking  with 
the  decay  of  domestic  industry.  As  little  has  the  Govern- 
ment gained,  which,  twice,  in  time  of  peace,  has  been  com- 
pelled to  resort  to  loans  to  defray  its  yearly  expenses. 

High  duties  on  the  rival  imports  are  not,  as  has  been  alleg- 
ed, for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  manufacturer  to  sell  his 
wares  high,  and  never  can  have  that  effect,  but  precisely  the 
opposite  effect.  It  is  protection  which  enables  him  to  sell 
them  cheaply.  The  reason  why,  need  not  be  accurately  in- 
quired into  when  we  know  the  invariable  fact.  Perhaps  it 
is  that  cheapness  depends  essentially  upon  the  assurance  of 


142  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VII. 

a  market  ;  a  steady  demand.  The  great  market,  the  home 
market,  creates  this  demand.  The  profits  of  business,  tc  be 
very  small,  must  be  very  certain.  No  industry,  no  skill,  no 
economy,  can  hold  up  new  establishments  if  abandoned  by  their 
Government,  and  left  to  be  undersold  by  foreign  rivals  who 
know  that  to  stop  them  is  to  destroy  them.  So  familiar  is 
this  to  the  two  greatest  manufacturing  nations  of  the  world, 
England  and  France,  that,  when  they  mean  peculiarly  to 
cherish  any  manufacture,  they  do  not  content  themselves 
with  a  duty  of  25  or  30  per  cent,  on  the  foreign  rival  com- 
modity ;  but  they  impose  a  duty  nearly  equal  to,  and  some- 
times above,  the  value  of  the  article,  or  they  prohibit  it  alto- 
gether. 

As  to  the  details  of  the  bill,  Mr.  T.  observed,  that,  on  cot- 
ton goods,  the  bill  left  the  duties  as  it  found  them,  with  one 
exception.  The  minimum  valuation  of  imported  cloths  is 
raised  from  25  cents  the  square  yard  to  35  cents.  The  in- 
tent is  to  give  protection  to  fabrics  superior  in  fineness,  by 
two  or  three  grades,  to  those  which  are  now  protected. 

Mr.  McDuffie,  of  S.  C.,  said  :  What  is  the  question  before 
us  ?  It  is  not  a  question  which  is  urged  upon  us  on  national 
grounds  at  all  ;  but  it  is  a  question  distinctly  arraying 
against  each  other  two  different  sections  of  the  Confederacy. 
Adverting  to  the  suggestion  that  the  culture  of  cotton  had 
been  aided  by  protecting  duties,  he  said  it  was  to  insult  his 
understanding.  Was  cotton  raised,  in  the  beginning,  for  the 
use  of  our  own  manufactories,  or  for  any  purpose  in  which 
foreign  cotton  could  come  in  competition  with  it  in  the  United 
States  ?  No.  From  the  beginning  it  had  been  raised  for  ex- 
portation. The  duty  did  not  operate  upon  the  culture  of  cot- 
ton. 

Mr.  McD.  opposed  the  protection  of  cotton  bagging.*  The 
Speaker,  [Mr.  Clay,]  had  said,  that,  if  this  bill  should  pass, 
the  Western  country  would  in  one  year  be  able  to  furnish, 
if  necessary,  20,000,000  yards  of  the  article,  as  it  required 
but  simple  and  unexpensive  machinery.  What,  said  he,  is 
the  principle  on  which  such  duties  have  been  heretofore  ad- 
vocated ?  It  is  that  manufactures  require  large  investments 
of  capital,  complicated  machinery,  and  length  of  time  to  bring 
them  to  perfection,  &e.,  which  causes  require  protection  to 
prevent  the  manufacture  from  being  destroyed  in  infancy.  ID 

*  A  cloth  not  made  of  cotton,  but  of  hemp,  and  marie  into  bags  for 
packing  cotton  into  boles. 


1824.J  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  143 

the  present  case  no  such  ground  was  taken.  This  manufac- 
ture, then,  needed  no  protection.  Mr.  McD.  examined  the  ar- 
gument that  the  consumer  and  not  the  grower  of  the  cotton, 
paid  the  duty  on  the  bagging.  If  the  bagging  were  to  coat 
one  hundred  dollars  for  each  bag,  it  would  not  raise  the  price 
of  cotton  abroad.  The  whole  additional  cost  of  the  bagging 
would  fall  on  those  who  make  the  cotton. 

To  the  duties  on  several  articles  there  was  strong  opposi- 
tion. The  duty  proposed  on  bar  iron  and  bolts  not  manufac- 
tured by  rolling,  was  $1  12  per  cent.  Members  representing 
the  shipping  interest  opposed  this  item  ;  and 

Mr.  Fuller,  of  Mass.,  moved  to  strike  it  out  of  the  bill,  ob- 
serving that  iron  was  an  article  of  far  more  general  impor- 
tance than  cotton  bagging,  or  wheat,  which  had  occupied  so 
much  attention.  To  every  farmer  and  mechanic,  the  increas- 
ed duty  would  cause  a  corresponding  increase  of  price  for 
their  implements  of  husbandry,  and  of  their  respective  me- 
chanic arts.  But  of  all  the  classes  of  the  community  who 
must  feel  the  pressure  of  this  new  burden,  the  ship-builder 
must  suffer  most.  While  the  burden  of  this  new  duty  was 
coextensive  with  the  Union,  the  benefit  intended  would  be  con- 
fined to  one  or  two,  or  at  most  to  three  of  the  States  ;  far  the 
greater  part  to  Pennsylvania  alone.  He  thought  most  of  the 
manufacturers  of  iron  needed  no  protection. 

Mr.  Buchanan  admitted  that  a  few  iron-masters  who  had 
acquired  sufficient  wealth  to  survive  the  general  wreck  in 
which  a  large  proportion  of  that  class  of  citizens  had  been 
involved,  had  been  able  to  support  themselves.  This,  how- 
ever, was  the  case  only  with  respect  to  those  who  resided  a>t 
some  distance  from  the  seacoast,  and  in  a  neighborhood  in 
which  there  was  a  demand  for  all  they  can  manufacture.  But 
what,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  the  condition  of  those  manufacturers 
residing  in  the  interior,  who  have  no  market  at  home,  but 
must  depend  upon  that  of  the  Atlantic  cities  ?  Being  com- 
pelled to  incur  the  expense  of  transporting  their  iron  to  a 
market  where  it  comes  in  competition  with  that  from  Russia 
arid  Sweden,  they  must  be  ruined  if  they  continue  in  the  busi- 
ness. Most  of  them  in  this  situation  have  been  compelled 
to  stop. 

In  the  interior  and  mountainous  districts  of  Pennsylvania, 
but  a  few  years  ago,  there  were  a  great  number  of  furnaces 
and  forges  in  operation.  Their  owners  were  prosperous,  and 
spread  prosperity  around  them.  These  manufactories  pre- 
sented the  best  and  surest  market  to  the  neighboring  coun- 


144  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VII. 

try  for  the  products  cf  agriculture.  Thus,  they  diffused 
wealth  among  the  people  ;  money  circulated  freely  ;  arid  the 
manufacturer  and  the  farmer  were  equally  benefited.  The 
present  aspect  of  those  districts  presents  a  melancholy  con- 
trast to  that  which  I  have  just  described.  Although  that 
portion  of  Pennsylvania  abounds  with  ore,  with  wood,  and 
with  water-power,  yet  its  manufactories  generally  have  sunk 
into  ruin,  and  exist  only  as  standing  monuments  of  the  false 
policy  of  the  Government.  The  manufacturers  and  their  la- 
borers are  both  thrown  out  of  employment,  and  the  neighbor- 
ing farmer  is  without  a  market. 

The  minimum  cost  of  imported  woolen  cloths  on  which  a 
duty  of  30  per  cent,  was  to  be  imposed,  was  80  cents  the 
square  yard.  This  minimum  it  was  proposed  to  alter  to  40 
cents. 

Mr.  Martindale,  of  N.  Y.,  opposed  the  amendment.  The 
duty  proposed  by  the  bill  would  not  raise,  but  diminish  the 
price,  as  a  similar  duty  had  operated  on  coarse  cottons.  This 
was  a  sort  of  fabric  with  which  American  manufacturers 
could  easily  fill  the  market. 

Mr.  Tod,  who  had  himself  moved  th'e  amendment,  said  he 
had  no  wish  to  see  this  clause  stricken  out ;  but  he  had  made 
the  motion  in  consequence  of  an  assurance  that  several  lead- 
ing members,  now  opposed  to  the  bill,  would  support  it  if 
this  feature  were  removed. 

Mr.  Tracy,  of  New  York.,  said  this  amendment  aimed  a 
blow  at  the  most  important  item  in  the  whole  bill.  He  be- 
lieved the  country  was  able  to  raise  all  the  wool  it  needed. 

Mr.  Buchanan  supported  the  amendment  as  proper  in  itself, 
and  calculated  to  promote  a  spirit  of  conciliation.  The  pre- 
sent duty  was  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ;  the  bill  would  raise 
it  to  33£.  The  minimum  proposed  by  the  amendment  was 
40  cents  per  square  yard.  A  yard  of  coarse  baize  costs  8 
pence  sterling  ;  the  ad  valorem  duty  as  amended,  was  equal 
to  80  per  cent.  ;  without  the  amendment,  it  would  amount  to 
1 30  per  cent.  He  thought  we  were  not  yet  ready  for  a  pro- 
hibitory duty  on  coarse  woolens.  If  the  raw  material  was 
abundant,  he  should  oppose  any  reduction  of  the  minimum. 
Mr.  Tod,  to  allow  time  for  further  consideration,  withdrew 
the  amendment ;  and  then  moved  to  amend  the  bill,  by  re- 
ducing the  proposed  duty  en  coarse  wool  costing  not  over  10 
cents  per  pound,  to  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  It  appeared 
that  a  coarser  wool  was  wanted  than  any  raised  in  this  coun- 
try, fur  a  particular  kind  of  coarse  goods,  (negro  cloths,) 


I8?4.J  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  145 

&c.  ;  and  that  that  kind  of  wool  might  be  procured  sometimes 
for  8,  and  sometimes  even- for  6  cents  a  pound,  while  the  lowest 
priced  American  wool  cost  25  cents. 

Mr.  Ingham,  of  Pa.,  advocated  the  amendment.  He  hoped 
this  coarse  wool  would  not  be  excluded  from  importation  ;  it 
employed  a  large  number  of  additional  spindles,  without  in 
th<!  least  interfering  with  our  native  products.  A  million  of 
pounds  were  imported  last  year,  chiefly  from  South  America, 
wilh  which  country  it  was  our  interest  to  cherish  a  commer- 
cial connection,  as  she  furnishes  a  market  for  many  of  our 
manufactures. 

Air.  Forward,  of  Pa.,  also  supported  the  amendment. 
From  the  information  received  on  the  subject  he  had  changed 
his  mind.  This  coarse  wool  from  Smyra  and  South  America 
could  not  compete  with  our  own.  He  was  in  favor  of  event- 
ually excluding  foreign  wool  ;  but  it  must  be  done  by  de- 
grees. A  large  and  sudden  duty  would  break  down  the  manu- 
facturers. 

Mr.  Livermore,  of  N.  IT.,  spoke  in  behalf  of  the  Eastern 
farmers,  against  the  amendment.  He  had  found  in  the  bill 
only  two  items  in  favor  of  the  farmer,  the  duty  on  wool  and 
the  duty  on  tallow.  Exclude  the  coarse  bad  wool  from 
abroad,  and  you  will  soon  have  a  better  article.  If  labor  is 
to  be  protected,  let  it  be  protected.  Don't  give  it  a  less  mar- 
ke\;  than  it  has  already. 

Mr.  Martindale,  of  N.  Y.,  could  not  agree  with  gentlemen 
said  that  the  coarse  wool  did  not  come  in  competition 
with  our  own.  If  it  was  now  used  where  our  own  would  be 
used  if  this  were  excluded,  then,  to  its  whole  extent,  it  does 
come  in  competition  with  ours.  The  duty  now  proposed  was 
not  a  prohibition.  The  article  would  still  be  imported, 
though  in  less  quantity.  It  would  operate  moderately  ;  and 
that  was  just  what  the  agriculturist  wanted.  It  was  to  him 
we  cught  to  look  ;  but  we  could  only  reach  him  through  the 
manufacturer.  Gentlemen  have  shown  great  anxiety  lest  the 
du  ty  should  injure  the  poor.  Mr.  M.  said  he  also  was  a  friend 
of  the  poor  ;  but  he  would  aid  them  in  giving  them  employ- 
ment. If  the  duty  should  for  a  time  increase  the  price  of 
coarse  woolen  goods,  it  would,  in  the  same  proportion,  in- 
crease the  employment  of  the  poor  who  were  to  buy  them. 
It  is  a  principle  of  universal  application,  that  where  the  produc- 
ing power  exists,  protecting  duties  will  cause  the  article  to  be  produced 
cheaper  than  before. 

Gentlemen  who  advocate  the  amendment,  seem  to  forget 


146  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VII. 

the  policy  of  England,  which  is  to  break  down  our  manufac- 
tures by  every  practicable  means.  Will  she  regard  this 
small  duty  ?  No  ;  she  will  pour  in  her  manufactures  upon  us 
so  long  as  she  can  sell  them  for  any  thing  more  than  the 
duty.  It  is  time  to  protect  the  farmers,  that  they  may  be- 
gin a  sj'stem  of  home  supply.  It  is  at  the  beginning  that 
this  protection  is  needed.  Gentlemen  say  we  must  not  tax 
coarse  wool,  because  we  can  not  now  supply  the  demand  ; 
but  we  are  supplying  that  demand  with  a  substitute  ;  we 
mix  cotton  in  the  woolen  fabrics,  and  this  is  a  benefit  to  all 
our  Southern  country.  Surely  it  is  fair,  that  when  the  manu- 
facturer asks  the  farmer  to  buy  his  cloth,  the  farmer  should 
ask  in  return  that  the  manufacturer  will  take  his  wool. 

Mr.  Ingham,  of  Pa.,  thought  it  the  interest  of  the  consumer 
that  the  duty  should  be  reduced.  The  effect  of  a  duty  on 
coarse  wool  would  be,  to  throw  all  who  are  now  engaged  in 
manufacturing  the  raw  material  into  coarse  goods,  entirely 
out  of  employment ;  and  there  were  not  less  than  10,000 
spindles  thus  occupied.  Were  not  the  farmers  interested  in 
feeding  this  body  of  men  ?  Where  manufactures  flourish, 
the  farmers  flourish. 

Mr.  Cambreleng,  of  N.  Y.,  in  reply  said,  if  it  is  not  wise  to 
prohibit  the  importation  of  coarse  wool  because  it  is  not 
raised  in  this  country,  why  not  apply  the  argument  to  hemp  ? 
The  Navy  Commissioners  can  not  use  the  American  hemp  be- 
cause it  is  bad  ;  y  <t  this  is  to  be  made  subject  to  a  prohibi- 
tory duty.  The  g'titleman  says,  if  a  duty  is  laid  on  coarse 
wool,  a  different  r  fticle  must  be  substituted.  Just  so  his 
bill  will  operate  is  the  article  of  linens.  It  will  lower  the 
price  of  linens,  b'  \  will  supply  their  place  by  cottons. 

Mr.  Ingham,  ir  eply,  said  that  he  had  said  nothing  about 
the  hemp  duty.  Jhe  honorable  gentleman  seems  kindly  t> 
assume  opinions  for  me. 

Mr.  McLane,  of  Del.,  believed  the  question  was  not  under- 
stood. If  the  bill  passes,  the  duty  on  the  raw  material  will 
countervail  the  duty  on  foreign  goods  :  the  duty  will  come 
on  the  consumer.  The  duty  on  coarse  wool  only  concerns 
the  fabric  of  negro  cloths.  The  cloth  is  now  made  out  of 
wool  that  costs  from  10  to  20  cents  a  pound.  A  high  duty 
will  oblige  the  American  manufacturer  to  substitute  a  finer 
cloth  for  the  coarse  article  ;  and  then  the  foreigner  comes  in 
and  supplants  him.  It  is  never  politic  to  tax  a  raw  material, 
unless  to  encourage  its  growth  at  home.  But  this  kind  of 
wool  is  not  produced  here  ;  so  that  under  pretense  of  encour- 


1824.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  147 

aging  manufactures,  you  deprive  the  manufacturer  of  the 
very  material  on  which  he  is  to  work.  The  American 
farmer  raises  wool  from  a  mixed  breed  of  sheep  ;  and  the  very 
coarsest  of  it  costs  20  or  30  cents.  But  the  foreign  is  raised 
by  the  wandering  shepherds  of  Buenos  Ayrcs  and  the  boors 
of  Sweden.  There  are  other  kinds  of  wool  raised  amongst 
us  which  ought  to  be  protected.  There  is  no  wool  raised 
here  at  less  than  25,  and  most  of  it  at  40  cents.  Whence 
are  you  to  get  two  million  pounds  of  this  coarse  wool  ?  It 
would  require  600,000  sheep,  and  would  take  eight  or  nine 
years.  What  becomes  of  your  manufacturers  mean  while  ? 
They  are  gone  ;  and  when  the  wool  comes  there  is  nobody 
who  wants  it. 

Mr.  Tod's  amendment  to  reduce  the  duty  on  the  coarse 
wool  to  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  was  carried. 

Mr.  Clay  said  :  Jt  is  my  intention,  with  the  permission  of 
the  Committee,  to  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  pre- 
sent to  its  consideration  those  general  views,  as  they  appear 
to  me,  of  the  true  policy  of  this  country,  which  imperiously 
demands  the  passage  of  this  bill.  I  am  deeply  sensible,  Mr. 
Chairman,  of  the  high  responsibility  of  my  present  situation. 
But  that  responsibility  inspires  me  with  no  other  apprehen- 
sion than  that  I  shall  be  unable  to  fulfill  my  duty  ;  with  no 
other  solicitude  than  that  I  may,  at  least  in  some  small  de- 
gree, contribute  to  recall  my  country  from  the  pursuit  of  a 
fatal  policy,  which  appears  to  me  inevitably  to  lead  to  its 
impoverishment  and  ruin. 

Two  classes  of  politicians  divide  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  According  to  the  system  of  one,  the  produce  of 
foreign  industry  should  be  subjected  to  no  other  impost  than 
such  as  may  be  necessary  to  produce  a  public  revenue  ;  and 
the  produce  of  American  industry  should  be  left  to  sustain  it- 
self, if  it  can,  with  no  other  than  that  incidental  protection  in 
its  competition,  at  home  as  well  as  abroad,  with  rival  foreign 
articles.  According  to  the  system  of  the  other  class,  whilst 
the}7  agree  that  the  imposts  should  be  mainly,  and  may,  under 
any  modification,  be  safely  relied  on  as  a  fit  and  convenient 
source  of  public  revenue,  they  would  so  adjust  and  arrange 
the  duties  on  foreign  fabrics,  as  to  afford  a  gradual  but. ade- 
quate protection  to  American  industry,  and  lessen  our 
dependence  on  foreign  nations,  by  securing  a  certain,  and 
ultimately  a  cheaper  and  better  supply  of  our  own  wants  from 
our  own  abundant  resources.  Both  classes  are  equally  sin- 
cere in  their  respective  opinions,  equally  honest,  equally 


148  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VII 

patriotic,  and  desirous  of  advancing  the  prosperity  of  the 
country.  In  the  discussion  of  these  opposite  opinions  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  which  has  the  support  of  truth  and 
reason,  we  should  exercise  every  indulgence,  and  the  greatest 
spirit  of  mutual  moderation  and  forbearance  :  and  we  should 
look  fearlessly  and  truly  at  the  actual  condition  of  the  coun- 
try, retrace  the  causes  which  have  brought  us  into  it,  and 
snatch,  if  possible,  a  view  of  the  future.  We  should,  above 
all,  consult  experience — the  experience  of  other  nations  as 
well  as  our  own,  as  our  truest  and  most  unerring  guide. 

The  general  distress,  said  Mr.  C.,  was  indicated  by  the 
diminished  exports  of  native  produce,  by  our  reduced  foreign 
navigation  and  diminished  commerce  ;  by  the  alarming  dimi- 
nution of  the  circulating  medium  ;  by  the  numerous  bank- 
ruptcies among  all  classes  of  society  ;  by  a  universal  com- 
plaint of  the  want  of  employment,  and  a  consequent  reduction 
of  the  wages  of  labor  ;  by  the  reluctant  resort  to  the  perilous 
use  of  paper  money  ;  and,  above  all,  by  the  depressed  value 
of  all  kinds  of  property,  which  had,  on  an  average,  sunk 
nearly  fifty  per  cent,  within  a  few  years.  The  cause  of  our 
unlhappy  condition  was  found  in  the  fact,  that  we  had  shaped 
our  industry,  our  commerce,  and  our  navigation,  in  reference 
to  an  extraordinary  war  in  Europe,  and  to  foreign  markets 
wiich  no  longer  existed.  The  revival  of  commerce  and  navi- 
gation, and  the  extension  of  agricultural  and  other  branches 
of  industry  in  that  country,  had  destroyed  the  demand  for  our 
navigation,  our  commerce,  and  the  produce  of  our  industry. 
Thf  •  altered  state  of  Europe  he  regarded  as  the  cause  of  exist- 
ing evils.  The  greatest  want  of  civilized  society  is  a  market 
foi  the  surplus  products  of  labor.  Both  a  foreign  and  a  home 
imi'-ket  were  desirable  ;  but  the  latter  was  most  important. 
Tlr  object  of  the  bill  was  to  create  the  latter,  and  to  lay  the 
for  idation  of  a  genuine  American  policy.  Foreign  nations 
con  Id  not,  if  they  would,  take  our  surplus  produce.  Our  popu- 
lat'on  doubled  in  about  twenty-five  years  ;  theirs  in  about 
on*  hundred  years.  If,  therefore,  as  was  presumed,  the  in- 
crc  ase  of  production  and  consumption  was  in  proportion  to 
the  increase  of  population,  our  power  of  production  would  in- 
crease in  a  ratio  four  times  as  great  as  their  capacity  for 
consumption. 

But  if  they  could,  they  would  not  receive  our  agricultural 
produce,  so  far  as  it  comes  into  collision  with  their  own. 
They  reject  all  our  great  staples  which  consist  of  objects  of 
human  subsistence,  and  receive  only  those  raw  materials  ea- 


1824.J  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  149 

sential  to  their  manufactures,  with  the  exception  of  tobacco 
and  rice,  which  they  can  not  produce.  Both  tLo  inability  and 
policy  of  foreign  nations  forbid  our  reliance  up.,.i  the  foreign 
market  for  the  surplus  produce  of  American  labor.  This  was 
confirmed  by  experience.  [Mr.  Clay  here  presented  a  state- 
ment, showing  that,  during  certain  periods,  while  the  increase 
of  population  had  been  four  per  cent.,  our  exports  of  domes- 
tic produce  remained  nearly  stationary.]  Nor  was  the 
foreign  market  likely  to  improve.  Europe  would  not  aban- 
don her  own  agriculture  to  foster  ours.  To  continue  in  the 
existing  pursuits  of  agriculture  without  creating  a  new  mar- 
ket, must  augment  the  quantity  of  our  produce,  and  lessen 
its  value  in  the  foreign  market.  Cotton,  as  well  as  other 
articles,  would  be  thus  affected.  Our  agricultural  is  our 
greatest  interest ;  and  to  advance  it,  we  should  contemplate 
it  in  all  its  varieties  of  farming,  planting  and  grazing.  Ex- 
clusive dependence  on  the  foreign  market  must  lead  to  still 
severer  distress.  Still  cherishing  the  foreign  market,  let  us 
create  a  home  market,  to  give  further  scope  to  the  consump- 
tion of  the  products  of  American  industry.  Let  us  with- 
draw the  support  we  give  to  foreign  industry,  and  stimulate 
our  own.  It  is  a  prominent  object  of  wise  legislators  to 
multiply  the  vocations  and  to  extend  the  business  of  society, 
by  the  protection  of  home  interests  against  foreign  legis- 
lation. 

A  home  market,  said  Mr.  C.,  is  necessary  to  secure,  not 
only  a  just  reward  for  agricultural  labor,  but  a  supply  of  our 
wants.  If  we  can  not  sell,  we  can  not  buy.  That  portion  of 
our  population — four-fifths,  as  we  have  seen — which  produces 
comparatively  nothing  which  foreigners  will  receive,  have" 
nothing  wherewith  to  purchase  from  foreigners.  Hence  it  is 
better  to  buy  the  domestic  fabric  at  a  higher  nominal  price, 
than  to  buy  the  foreign  for  which  we  have  nothing  to  give  in. 
exchange.  The  superiority  of  the  home  market  consists,  first, 
in  its  greater  steadiness  and  certainty  ;  secondly,  in  the 
creation  of  reciprocal  interest ;  thirdly,  in  the  greater  secu- 
rity ;  and  fourthly,  in  an  ultimate  increase  of  consumption, 
and  consequently  of  comfort,  from  increased  quantity  and  re- 
duced prices. 

To  illustrate  the  benefits  of  this  domestic  policy,  suppose 
that  500,000  persons  arc  now  employed  abroad  in  fabricating, 
for  our  consumption,  those  articles  with  which,  by  the  opera- 
tion of  this  bill,  it  is  intended  to  supply  ourselves.  These 
persons  are,  in  effect,  subsisted  by  us  ;  but  the  means  of  sub- 


150  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VII 

sistence  are  drawn  from  foreign  agriculture.  If  they  wore 
transported  to  this  country,  the  demand  in  the  article  of  flour 
alone  required  for  their  subsistence,  would  be  about  900,000 
barrels,  which  exceeds  the  entire  quantity  exported  the  laet 
year.  But  if  we  should  thus  employ  this  number  of  our  own 
citizens  instead  of  foreigners,  the  beneficial  effects  upon  the 
farming  interest  would  be  nearly  doubled.  By  directing 
so  many  hands  to  other  pursuits,  the  productions  of  agricul- 
tural labor  would  be  greatly  diminished.  This  diminution  of 
the  quantity  alone  would  increase  their  proportional  value  ; 
but  this  value  would  be  still  further  enhanced  by  the  home 
market  created 

In  political  economy,  the  great"  object  is,  so  to  apply  the 
aggregate  industry  of  a  nation  as  to  produce  the  greatest 
amount  of  wealth.  Labor  is  the  source  of  wealth  ;  but  it  is 
not  natural  labor  only.  The  sparseness  of  our  population 
had  been  urged  as  unfitting  us  for  manufacturing.  But  such 
are  the  improvements  in  machinery,  that  little  of  the  value 
is  given  to  many  fabrics  by  manual  labor.  Hence  the  price 
of  wages  is  of  less  account  than  formerly.  Asia,  for  exam- 
ple, had  formerly,  by  the  density  of  her  population  and  the 
lowness  of  wages,  laid  Europe  under  tribute  for  many  of  her 
fabrics.  Now,  Europe,  Great  Britain  in  particular,  reacts 
upon  Asia,  and  throws  back  upon  her  countless  millions  of 
people  the  products  of  artificial  labor  infinitely  cheaper  than 
they  can  be  manufactured  by  the  natural  exertions  of  that 
portion  of  the  globe.  It  is  to  the  immense  power  of  her  ma- 
chinery that  Britain  is  indebted  for  her  wealth.  Her  machine 
labor  is  estimated  to  be  equal  to  that  of  200,000,000  able 
bodied  laborers  ;  which  gives  her  a  power  to  create  wealth 
ten  times  greater  than  that  of  the  United  States.  Her  reve- 
nue in  1822  was  nearly  $245,000,000  ;  eleven  times  that  of 
the  United  States  during  the  same  year. 

Her  prosperous  commerce  also  denotes  her  immense  riches. 
The  average  of  her  exports  for  three  years  ending  in  1789, 
was  £13,000,000  sterling,  and  of  her  imports,  £17,000,000. 
Her  exports  are  now  £40,000,000,  and  her  imports  £36,000,- 
000  ;  showing  a  balance  of  trade  in  her  favor,  of  £4,000,000, 
or  nearly  $20,000,000  ;  and  her  tunnage  had  largely  increas- 
ed during  the  intervening  period. 

Mr.  C.  alluded  to  the  increased  exports  of  her  cotton  man- 
ufactures, being,  in  1822,  nearly  $96,000,000,  while  her  im- 
ports of  cotton  wool  were  only  £5,000,000  sterling,  or  upwards 
of  $23,000,000.  And  such  is  the  value  given  to  the  raw  material 


1824.]  DEBATE  OX  THE  BILL.  151 

by  her  industry,  that  after  supplying  her  own  consumption, 
the  amount  of  fabrics  exported  exceeded  the  cost  of  the  cot- 
ton by  about  $74,000,000  !  The  value  of  her  exports  of 
woolen  manufactures  in  1821  was  upwards  of  §24,000,000. 
The  gentleman  from  Virginia  [P.  P.  Barbour]  says,  the 
wealth  annually  produced  in  Great  Britain  by  agriculture  is 
greater  than  that  created  by  any  other  branch  of  her  indus- 
try. But  that  flows  mainly  from  a  policy  similar  to  that  pro- 
duced by  this  bill.  One-third  only  of  her  population  is  en- 
gaged in  agriculture  ;  the  other  two-thirds  furnishing  a  mar- 
ket for  the  produce  of  that  third.  Withdraw  this  market, 
and  what  becomes  of  her  agriculture  ?  Her  protecting  pol- 
icy is  adapted  alike  to  a  state  of  war  and  a  state  of  peace. 
Possessing  a  home  market  carefully  cherished  and  guarded, 
she  is  prepared  for  any  emergency.  Every  year  of  peace 
brings  with  it  an  increase  of  her  manufactures,  of  her  com- 
merce, and,  consequent!}',  of  her  navigation.  Her  prosperity, 
founded  upon  her  own  protecting  policy,  is  unaffected  by  the 
vicissitudes  and  changes  of  other  nations.  But  what  is  our 
condition  ?  Depending  upon  the  state  of  foreign  powers — • 
confiding  in  a  foreign  to  the  neglect  of  a  domestic  policy — • 
our  interests  are  affected  by  all  their  movements.  Their 
wars,  their  misfortunes,  are  the  source  of  our  prosperity.  Our 
system  can  succeed  only  in  the  rare  occurrence  of  a  general 
war  in  Europe.  Mr.  Clay  proceeded  to  consider  the  remedy 
to  the  evils  with  which  the  country  was  afflicted.  There  is 
a  remedy,  he  said,  and  that  remedy  consists  in  modifying  our 
policy,  and  in  adopting  a  genuine  AMERICAN  SYSTEM.  We 
must  naturalize  the  arts  in  our  country  ;  and  we  must  do  so 
by  the  only  means  which  the  wisdom  of  nations  has  yet  dis- 
covered to  be  effectual — by  adequate  protection  against  the 
otherwise  overwhelming  influence  of  foreigners.  This  is  to 
be  accomplished  only  by  the  establishment  of  a  tariff.  And 
what  is  this  tariff  ?  It  seems  to  have  beon  regarded  as  a 
sort  of  monster — a  wild  beast,  endowed  with  tremendous 
powers  of  destruction,  about  to  be  let  loose  among  our  peo- 
ple, if  not  to  devour  them,  at  least  to  consume  their  sub- 
stance. But  the  sole  object  of  this  terrific  being,  the  tariff, 
is  to  tax  the  produce  of  foreign  industry,  with  the  view  of 
promoting  American  industry.  Mr.  C.  replied  to  the  numer- 
ous objections  that  bad  been  urged  against  the  bill. 

1.  The  tariff  has  been  treated  as  an  imposition  of  bur- 
thens upon  one  part  of  the  community  for  the  benefit  of 
another  ;  as  if  money  was  in  fact  taken  from  the  pockets  of 


152  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.   VII. 

some,  and  put  into  the  pockets  of  others.  No  man  pays  the 
duty  by  compulsion,  but  voluntarily,  and,  if  paid,  it  goes  in- 
to the  common  exchequer,  for  tlie  common  benefit  of  all.  He 
may  abstain  from  the  use  of  the  foreign  article,  and  thus 
avoid  the  tax  ;  or  he  may  use  the  rival  American  fabric  ; 
or  he  may  engage  in  manufacturing  ;  or  he  may  supply  him- 
self from  the  household  manufactures.  But  it  is  said,  that 
the  South,  from  the  character  of  her  population,  cannot  en- 
gage in  manufactures.  This  may  disqualify  the  South  from 
engaging  in  certain  branches  of  manufacture,  but  to  some 
branches  of  it  that  part  of  our  population  is  well  adapted. 
But  if  they  were  not,  what  is  to  be  done  ?  Is  it  reasonable 
that  we  should  abstain  from  adopting  a  policy  called  for  by 
the  interest  of  the  greater  and  freer  part  of  our  population  ? 
That  would  be,  in  effect,  to  make  us  the  slaves  of  slaves. 
Does  not  a  perseverance  in  the  foreign  policy  make  all  parts 
of  the  Union  not  planting  tributary  "to  the  planting  parts  ? 
But  supposing  the  South  to  be  actually  incompetent  or  dis- 
inclined to  embark  in  manufacturing,  is  not  its  interest,  nev- 
ertheless, likely  to  be  promoted  by  creating  a  new  and  an 
American  source  of  supply  for  its  consumption  ?  If  this  bill 
should  pass,  an  American  competition  with  Great  Britain, 
would  be  raised  up,  and  the  South  would  ultimately  be  sup- 
plied cheaper  and  better. 

2.  It  is  objected  that  the  bill  will  diminish  our  exports. 
The  argument  is,  that  Europe  will  not  buy  of  us,  if  we  do  not 
buy  of  her.  It  calls  upon  us  to  take  care  of  European  abili- 
ty in  our  legislating  for  American  interests.  Now  if,  in  legis- 
lating for  their  interests,  they  would  consider  and  provide 
for  our  ability,  the  principle  of  reciprocity  would  enjoin  us  so 
to  regulate  our  intercourse  with  them  as  to  leave  their  ability 
unimpaired.  But  in  the  adoption  of  their  own  policy,  their 
inquiry  is  limited  to  their  own  peculiar  interests,  without 
any  regard  to  ours.  The  bill  will  operate  only  upon  such  ar- 
ticles of  European  industry  as  our  supposed  interest  requires 
us  tu  manufacture  for  ourselves.  It  may  diminish  tho  im- 
ports of  those  articles  ;  but  it  leaves  them  free  to  supply  us 
with  any  other  produce  of  their  industry.  And  since  the  cir- 
cle of  human  comforts,  refinements  and  luxuries  is  of  great 
extent,  Europe  will  still  be  able  to  purchase  from  us  what 
she  has  hitherto  done,  and  pay  us  in  some  of  those  objects. 

If  there  be  any  diminution  in  our  exports  to  Europe,  it  will 
probably  be  in  the  article  of  cotton  to  Great  Britain.  Of  the 
,cotton  manufactures — amounting  to  upwards  of  £16,500,000 


1624.]  DEBATE    ON  THE  BILL.  153 

which  Great  Britain  sells  to  foreign  states,  we  take  a  little 
more  than  £1,500,000,  or  about  $7,000,000.  The  market  for 
'the  residue,  being  about  £20,000,000,  will  continue  open  to 
her,  as  much  after  as  before  the  passage  of  this  bill  ;  and  she 
will  require  from  us  the  raw  material.  The  diminution  in  the 
export  of  cotton  could  at  most  be  only  in  the  proportion  of 
about  one  and  a  half  to  twenty  ;  and  this  loss  of  the  market 
would  be  fully  made  up  by  the  market  of  the  article  created 
at  home.  Lastly,  I  would 'observe,  that  the  new  application 
of  our  industry,  producing  new  objects  of  exportation,  and 
they  possessing  much  greater  value  than  in  the  raw  state, 
we  should  be,  in  the  end,  amply  indemnified  by  their  expor- 
tation. Our  cotton  fabrics  are  already  exported,  in  a  large 
amount,  to  South  America,  where  they  maintain  a  successful 
competition  with  those  of  any  other  country. 

3.  The  tariff,  it  is  objected,  will  diminish  our  navigation. 
This  great  interest  deserves  encouragement ;    but  it  is  in  the 
order  of  nature,  secondary  to  both  agriculture  and  manufac- 
tures ;    therefore  these   branches   of  industry  must    not  be 
molded  or  sacrificed  to  suit  its  purposes  ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, navigation  should  accommodate  itself  to  the  state  of 
agriculture    and  manufactures.     But  if,   as  is  supposed,  no 
sensible  diminution  of  our  exports  will  be  produced  by  this 
measure,  and  if  the  new  direction  given  to  a  portion  of  our 
industry  shall  produce  other  objects  of  exportation,  the  pro- 
bability is,  that  our  foreign  tunnage  will  be  even  increased. 
But  should  it  experience  any  reduction,  the  increase  in  our 
coasting  tunnage,  caused  by  the  greater  activity  of  domestic 
exchanges,  will  more  than  compensate  the  injury.   Although 
our  navigation  partakes  in  the  general  distress,  it  is  less  de- 
pressed than  an}7  other  of  our  great  interests. 

4.  It  is  also  contended  that  our  foreign  commerce  will  be 
diminished.     Commerce   is    an    exchange    of    commodities. 
Whatever  tends  to  augment  the  wealth  of  a  nation  increases 
its  capacity  to  make  these  exchanges.     By  new  productions, 
or  new  values  given  to  old  objects  of  our  industry,  we  shall 
give  to  commerce  a  fresh  spring.     The  foreign  commerce  has 
probably  been  extended    about  as   far   as  it  can  be  ;   and  I 
think  the  balance  of  trade  is,  arid   has,  for   some  time  past, 
been  against  us.     I  was  surprised  to  hear  the  learned  gentle- 
man from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  Webster]   rejecting  as  a  de- 
tected and  exploded  fallacy,  the  idea  of  a  balance  of  trade, 
I  have  not  time  nor  inclination   now   to  discuss  that  topic  : 
but  I  will  observe,  that  all  nations   act  upon  the  supposition 

7* 


154  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VII 

of  the  reality  of  its  existence,  and  seek  to  avoid  a  trade  the 
balance  of  which  is  unfavorable,  and  to  foster  that  which 
presents  a  favorable  balance.  Commerce,  we  are  told,  wirl 
regulate  itself.  But  is  it  not  the  duty  of  wise  governments 
to  watch  its  course,  and,  beforehand,  to  provide  against  even 
distant  evils  ;  by  prudent  legislation  stimulating  the  indus- 
try of  their  own  people,  and  checking  the  policy  of  foreign 
powers  as  it  operates  on  them  ?  The  supply,  then,  of  the 
subjects  of  foreign  commerce,  no  less  than  the  supply  of  con- 
sumption at  home,  requires  us  to  give  a  portion  of  our  labor 
such  a  direction  as  will  enable  us  to  produce  them. 

5.  Again,  it  is  objected,  that  the  tariff  will  diminish  the 
revenue,  disable  us  from   paying   the   public  debt,  and  com- 
pel a  resort  to   excise   and  internal   taxation.     I  have  very 
little  doubt,  that   the   revenue,  under  the  operation   of  this 
bill,  will,  for  some  years  at  least,  be  congiderabty  increased. 
The  diminution,  if  any,  in  the  quantity  imported,  will  be  com- 
pensated by  the  augmentation   of  the  duty.     Some  articles, 
notwithstanding  the  increase  of  duties,  would  continue  to  be 
introduced  in  as  large  quantities  as  ever.     But  if  there  should 
be  a  reduction  of  the  revenue  to  the  extent   of  the  most  ex- 
travagant calculation  that  has  been  made  by  the  opponents 
of  the  tariff,  say  $5,000,000,  we  shall  still  have  remaining  a 
revenue  of  about  $15,000,000,  which  is  sufficient  for  the  cur- 
rent expenses  of  the  Government,  and  the  payment  of  the  in- 
terest on  the  public  debt. 

6.  But,  according  to  the  opponents  of  the  domestic  policy, 
tho  proposed  sj'stem  will  force   capital    and  labor  into  new 
and  reluctant  employments  ;  we  are  not  prepared,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  high  price  of  wages,  for  the  successful  estab- 
lishment of  manufacture?.     Existing   occupations   are  over- 
flowing with  competitors,  and  the  want   of  employment  is 
severely  felt.     The  bill  proposes  to  open  a  new  and  extensive 
field  for  business,  into  which  all  who  choose  may  enter.     An 
option  only  is  given   to  industry   to   continue  in  the  present 
unprofitable  pursuits,  or  to  embark  in  a  new  and  promising 
one.     The  high   price  of  wages   is  not  admitted.     No  class 
Buffers  more  than  the  laboring  class.     This  is  the  necessary 
effect  of  the  depression  of  agriculture,  the  principal  business 
of  the  community.     The  wnpres  of  able-bodied  men  varies  from 
$5  to  $8  p<  :  ;  nr.d  there  have  been  instances  of  men 
working  i.                ;    the   moans   of  present  subsisteix  <•.     i 
agree  with  i\-.c  gentleman  from  Virginia,  that  high  wages  are 
a  proof  of  ju.tional  prosperity.     But  if  the  fact  were  true, 


1824.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  155 

that  the  wages  of  labor  are  high,  I  deny  the  correctness  of 
the  argument  founded  upon  it.  It  assumes  that  natural  labor 
is  the  principal  element  in  the  business  of  manufacture.  That 
was  the  ancient  theory.  But  the  valuable  inventions  and  vast 
improvements  in  machinery  have  so  increased  the  power  of 
production,  that  the  price 'of  wages,  is,  of  all  the  circum- 
stances, perhaps  the  least  important. 

7.  It  is  said  that,  when  there  is  a  concurrence  of  favorable 
circumstances,  manufactures  will  arise  of  themselves,  with- 
out protection.     This  proposition  is  refuted  by  all  experience, 
ancient  and  modern.     In  consequence  of  superior  natural  ad- 
vantages and  a  greater  advance  in  civilization  and  the  arts, 
some  nations  enjoy  a  state  of  higher  prosperity  than  others  ; 
and  each  seeks  to  appropriate  to  itself  all  the  advantages  it- 
can,  without  reference  to  the  prosperity  of  others.     If  I  am 
asked  why   unprotected    industry    should   not    succeed  in  a 
struggle  with  protected  industry,  I  answer,  t\\c  fact  has  ever 
been  so,  and  that  is  sufficient :   uniform  experience  evinces  that 
it  can  not  succeed  in  such    an   unequal   contest,  and  that  is 
sufficient.     If  I  were  to  attempt  to  state  the  causes,  I  should 
say,  First,  that  no  nation,  no   individual,  especially  no  agri- 
cultural people,  will  easily  change   an  established  course  of 
business,  even  if   it   be  unprofitable.     Secondly,  the   uncer- 
tainty and  unsteadiness  of  the  home  market  when  liable  to 
an  unrestricted  influx   of  fabrics   from    all  foreign  nations. 
Thirdly,  the  superior  advance  of  skill  and  amount  of  capital 
which  foreign  nations   have   obtained    by   the  protection  of 
their  own  industry.     From  the  latter,  or  from  other  causes, 
the  unprotected  manufactures   of  a   country  are  exposed  to 
the  danger  of  being  crushed  in  their  infancy,  either  by  the 
design   or   from   the   necessities    of  foreign    manufacturers. 
Their  necessities  may  oblige  them  to  throw  into  our  markets 
the  fabrics  which  may  have  accumulated  on  their  hands  in 
consequence  of  obstruction   in  the   ordinary   vents,  or  from 
o\  er  calculation  ;  and  the  forced  sales  may  prostrate  our  es- 
tablishments. 

8.  But  it  is  said,  though  the  policy  of  protection  be  wise,  the 
measure  of  protection  is    already   sufficient.     With  few  ex- 
ceptions, the  existing  duties  were  laid  for  revenue,  and  with- 
out reference  to   the   encouragement   of  domestic  industry. 
Although  it  is  admitted  that  the  incidental  effect  of  duties  so 
laid  is  to  promote  our  manufactures,  yet  if  it  falls   short  of 
competent  protection,  the  duties  might  as  well  not  have  been 
imposed  with  reference  to  that  purpose.     A    moderate  addi- 
tion may  accomplish  this  desirable  end. 


156  THK  PROIECTIVK  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VII. 

9.  The  prohibitory  policy,  it  is  asserted,  is  condemned  by 
the  wisdom  of  Europe,  and  her  most  enlightened  statesmen. 
In  what  instance  has  a  nation  that  has  enjo3red  its  benefits, 
surrendered  i*  ?     The  amount  of  what  England  has  done  is 
to  modify  the  monopoly  of  the  East   India  Company,  in  be- 
half of  one  and  a  small  part  of  her  subjects,  to  increase  the 
commerce  of  another  and  the  greater  portion  of  them.     The 
measure  does  not  touch  at  all  the  interests  of  foreign  powers. 
The  toleration  of  our  commerce  with  British  India,  is  for  the 
sake  of  the  specie  with  which  we  mainly  curry  on  that  com- 
merce, and  which,  having  performed  its  circuit,  returns  to 
Great  Britain  in  exchange   for   British    manufactures.     But 
suppose  it  were  true  that  she  had  abolished  all  restrictions 
upon  trade,  -would  that  prove  it  unwise  for  us  to  adopt  the 
protective  system  ?     Her  manufactures  have  become  so  firmly 
established,  that  she  may  safely  challenge  free  competition 
in  exchanges.     It  is  upon  this  ground  that  her  writers  re- 
commend the  abandonment  of  the  prohibitory  system.     It  is 
to  give    greater   scope   to   British  industry   and  enterprise. 
But  there  is  no  proof  that   England  is  convinced  of  the  im- 
policy of  the  prohibitory  system,  and  is  desirous  to  abandon 
it.     Her  practice  is  opposed  to  the  theories  of  philosophical 
writers,  which,  wherever  adopted,  bring  with  them  impover- 
ishment and  ruin. 

10.  The  next  objection  which  I  shall  notice  is,  that  it  is  ad- 
verse to  the  genius  of  our  government,  in  its  tendency  to  the 
accumulation  of  large  capitals  in  a   few  hands  ;  in  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  public  morals  ;  and  in  the  consequent  danger 
to  public  liberty.     The  first  part  of  the  objection  would  ap- 
ply to  every  lucrative   business  :  to  commerce,  to  planting, 
and  to  the  learned  professions.     Immense   estates  have  also 
been  made  in  the  South.     The  dependents  are,  perhaps,  not 
more  numerous  upon  that    wealth    which    is  accumulated  in 
manufactures,  than  they  are  upon  that  which  is  acquired  by 
commerce  and  by  agriculture.     The  absence   of  the  English 
rule  of  primogeniture,  [by  which  the  eldest  son  takes  the  es- 
tate,] and  the  laws  regulating  the  distribution  of  inheritances, 
will  prevent  the  accumulation  of  large   fortunes  to  any  con- 
siderable extent.     What  has  become  of  those  fortunes  which 
wcro  hold  two  or  three  generations  back  in  Virginia  ?     Many 
of  the  descendants  of  the  ancient  aristocracy,  as  they  were 
called,  of  that  State,  nxe  now  in  the  most  indigent  condition. 
The  greatest  danger   to   public  liberty  is  from  idlmrss  and 
vice.     The  best  security  against  the  demoralization  of  society 


1824.J  DEBATE  OX  THE   BILL.  157 

is  the  constant  and  profitable  employment  of  its  members. 
The  extent  and  fertility  of  our  lands  constitute  an  adequate 
security  against  an  excess  in  manufactures,  and  against  op- 
pression, by  capitalists,  of  the  laboring  portions  of  the  com- 
munity. 

11.  The  last  objection  which  I  shall  notice  is,  that  the 
Constitution  does  not  authorize  the  passage  of  the  bill.  The 
gentleman  from  Virginia  thinks  the  bill  incompatible  with 
the  spirit  of  that  instrument.  It  we  attempt  to  provide  fur 
the  internal  improvement  of  the  country,  the  Constitution, 
according  to  some  gentlemen,  stands  in  our  way.  If  we  at- 
tempt to  protect  American  industry  against  foreign  policy 
and  the  rivalry  of  foreign  industr}^  the  Constitution  presents 
an  insuperable  obstacle.  This  Constitution  must  be  a  most 
singular  instrument  1  It  seems  to  have  been  made  for  any 
other  people  than  our  own.  According*  to  the  gentleman, 
duties  can  be  laid  only  for  the  purpose  of  revenue.  No 
doubt  revenue  was  a  principal  object  with  the  framers  of 
the  Constitution  in  investing  Congress  with  the  power  to  lay 
duties.  But  in  executing  it,  may  not  the  duties  and  imposts 
be  so  laid  as  to  secure  domestic  interests  ? 

But  the  gentleman  has  entirely  mistaken  the  clause  on 
which  we  rely.  It  is  that  which  gives  to  Congress  the  power 
to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations.  The  grant  is 
without  limitation.  What  is  a  regulation  of  commerce  ?  It 
implies  the  admission  or  exclusion  of  the  objects  of  it,  and 
the  terms.  Under  this  power,  laws  of  total  non-intercouive 
with  some  nations,  embargoes,  producing  a  total  cessation  of 
foreign  commerce,  have  been  passed. 

Mr.  C.  thus  appealed  to  the  South  :  You  think  the  measuie 
injurious  to  you  ;  we  believe  our  preservation  depends  upon 
its  adoption.  Our  convictions,  mutually  honest,  are  equally 
strong.  I  invoke  that  saving  spirit  of  mutual  concession 
under  which  our  blessed  Constitution  was  formed.  I  appeal 
to  the  South — to  the  high-minded,  generous,  patriotic  South 
— with  which  I  have  so  often  cooperated,  in  attempting  1o 
sustain  the  honor  and  vindicate  the  rights  of  our  country. 
Should  it  not  offer,  upon  the  altar  of  the  public  good,  some 
sacrifice  of  its  peculiar  opinions?  Of  what  does  it  complain  ? 
A  possible  temporary  enhancement  in  the  objects  of  consump- 
tion. Of  what  do  ice  complain  ?  A  total  incapacity,  produced 
by  the  foreign  policy,  to  purchase,  at  any  price,  necessary 
foreign  objects  of  consumption.  In  such  an  alternative,  in- 
convenient to  that  section,  ruinous  to  us,  caii  we  expect  too 


158  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VII. 

miich  from  Southern  magnanimity  ?  The  just  and  confident 
expectation  of  the  passage  of  this  bill,  has  flooded  the 
country  with  recent  importations  of  foreign  fabrics.  If  it 
should  not  pass,  they  will  complete  the  work  of  destruction 
of  our  domestic  industry.  If  it  should  pass,  they  will  prevent 
any  considerable  rise  in  the  price  of  foreign  commodities, 
until  our  own  industry  shall  be  able  to  supply  competent  sub- 
Htitates. 

We  have  had  great  difficulties  to  encounter.  1.  The 
splendid  talents  which  are  arrayed  in  this  House  against  us. 

2.  We  are  opposed  by  the  rich  and  powerful  in  the  land. 

3.  The  executive  Government  affords  us,  if  any,  but  a  cold 
and  equivocal   support.     4.  The  importing  and  navigating 
interests,  I  verily  berieve  from  misconception,  are  adverse  to 
us.     5.  The  British  factors,  and  the  British  influence  are  in- 
imical to  our  success.     6.  Long  established  habits  and  pre- 
judices oppose  us.     7.  The  reviewers  and  literary  speculators, 
fo.veign  and  domestic.     And,  lastly,  the  leading  presses  of 
the  country,  including  the  influence  of  that  which  is  estab- 
lished in  this  city,  and  sustained  by  the  public  purse.*    From 
some  of  these  or  other  causes,  the  bill  may  be  postponed, 
thwarted,  defeated.     But  the  cause  is  the  cause  of  the  coun- 
try, and  it  must  and  will  prevail. 

Mr.  Webster,  who  replied  to  Mr.  Clay,  regretted  that  he 
[Mr.  C.]  had  designated  the  advocates  of  the  bill  as  the 
friends  of  an  "  American  policy,"  and  its  opponents  as  the 
friends  of  a  "  foreign  policy."  As  we  were  invited  to  depart 
from  our  accustomed  course,  and  to  adopt  the  policy  of  the 
most  distinguished  foreign  states,  he  [Mr.  W.]  was  a  little 
curious  to  know  with  what  propriety  of  speech  the  imitation 
of  other  nations  was  denominated  an  "American  policy " 
while  our  own  established  system  was  called  a  "foreign 
policy." 

Mr.  W.  dissented  from  the  justice  of  the  picture  of  distress 
Which  had  been  drawn.  Profits,  indeed,  were  low  ;  in  some 
pursuits  of  life,  which  it  was  not  proposed  to  benefit,  but  to 
burden  by  this  bill,  very  low.  But  still,  he  was  unacquainted 
with  any  proofs  of  extraordinary  distress.  Judging  this 
question  by  our  exports,  we  should  come  to  a  conclusion 
somewhat  different  from  that  which  had  been  drawn.  Mr. 


*  The  National  InMTiJjencer,  by  Messrs.  Gales  and  Seaton.  This  paper 
subsequently  became  a  decided  and  efficient  advocate  of  the  protective 
system. 


1824.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  159 

Speaker  had  taken  the  exports  of  the  year,  1803,  and  from 
them  had  calculated  what  ought  to  have  been  a  just  increase  of 
our  exports  in  proportion  to  the  increase  of  our  population. 
He  had  selected  a  year  of  extraordinary  exportation,  which 
was  not  just.  Besides,  there  never  was  any  reason  to  expect 
that  the 'increase  of  exports  of  agricultural  products  would 
keep  pace  with  the  increase  of  our  population.  The  quantity 
of  the  means  of  subsistence  consumed,  and  of  the  comforts  of 
life  enjoyed  ;  the  investment  of  capital  in  various  improve- 
ments ;  the  money  expended  in  education,  were  referred  to 
by  Mr.  W.  as  evidence  that  there  was  no  such  extraordinary 
distress  as  had  been  described. 

In  inquiring1  for  a  remedy  for  existing  evils,  it  would  be 
unwise  to  adopt  any  system  that  might  be  offered  ;  it  was 
our  duty  to  look  carefully  to  each  leading  interest  of  the 
community,  and  see  how  it  might  be  affected  by  our  proposed 
legislation. 

Arid  first,  our  commerce.  It  had,  since  the  European  wars, 
been  greatly  depressed,  arid  limited  to  small  profits.  Still  it 
was  active,  and  seemed  capable  of  recovering  itself  in  a 
measure  from  its  depression.  The  shipping  interest  had 
probably  suffered  more  severely  than  our  commerce.  If  any- 
thing should  strike  us  with  astonishment,  it  was,  that  our 
navigation,  without  any  protection  from  the  Government, 
should  be  able  to  sustain  itself.  The  navigation  of  the  coun- 
try, he  said,  was  essential  to  its  honor  and  its  defense.  Yet 
it  was  proposed,  by  this  measure,  to  lay  upon  it  new  and 
heavy  burthens.  In  the  discussion,  the  other  day,  of  that 
provision  of  the  bill  which  proposes  to  tax  tallow  for  the 
benefit  of  the  oil  merchants  and  whalemen,  we  had  the 
pleasure  of  hearing  eloquent  eulogiurns  upon  that  portion  of 
our  shipping  employed  in  the  whale  fishery,  and  strong  state- 
ments of  its  importance  to  the  public  interest.  But  the  same 
bill  proposes  a  severe  tax  upon  that  interest  for  the  benefit 
of  the  iron  manufacturer  and  the  hemp  grower.  So  that  the 
tallow  chandlers  and  soap  boilers  are  sacrificed  to  the  oil 
merchants,  in  order  that  these  again  may  contribute  to  the 
manufacturers  of  iron  and  the  growers  of  hemp. 

What  is  the  condition  of  our  home  manufactures  ?  How 
are  they  amidst  the  general  depression  ?  Do  they  need 
further  protection  ?  and  if  any,  how  much  ?  On  all  these 
points,  we  have  had  much  general  statement,  but  little  pre- 
cise information.  "When  the  question  is  whether  new  duties 
Ehall  be  laid  for  the  purpose  of  giving  further  aid  to  par  tic  u- 


160  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  .  [Chap.  VII. 

lar  manufactures,  every  reasonable  man  must  ask  himself, 
both,  whether  the  proposed  new  encouragement  be  necessary, 
and  whether  it  can  be  given  without  injustice  to  other 
branches  of  industry. 

It  is  desirable  to  know,  also,  somewhat  more  distinctly, 
how  the  proposed  means  will  produce  the  intended  effect.  It 
is  proposed  to  increase  the  home  market  for  the  consumption 
of  agricultural  products  ;  but  what  provisions  of  the  bill  are 
expected  to  produce  this,  is  not  stated.  Some  increase  of  the 
home  market  may  follow  ;  but  all  its  provisions  have  not  an 
equal  tendency  to  produce  this  effect.  Those  manufactures 
which  employ  most  labor,  create,  of  course,  most  demand  for 
articles  of  consumption  ;  and  those  create  least,  in  the  pro- 
duction of  which  capital  and  skill  enter  as  the  chief  ingredi- 
ents of  cost.  I  cannot,  said  Mr.  W.,  take  this  bill,  merely 
because  a  committee  has  recommended  it.  I  wholly  repel  the 
idea  that  we  must  take  this  law,  or  pass  no  law  on  the  sub- 
ject. What  should  hinder  us  from  exercising  our  own  judg- 
ment upon  these  provisions,  singly  and  severally  ?  Tiicre 
are  many  things  in  this  bill  acceptable,  probably,  to  the  gen- 
eral sense  of  the  House.  Why  should  not  these  be  passed 
into  a  law,  and  others  left  to  be  decided  upon  their  o\va 
merits,  as  a  majority  shall  see  fit  ?  To  some  of  these  provi- 
sions I  am,  myself,  quite  favorable  ;  to  others  I  have  great 
objections. 

We  have  heard  much  of  the  policy  of  England  as  proving 
the  expediency  of  protection.  More  liberal  notions  are  grow- 
ing prevalent.  The  policy  of  restraints  and  prohibitions  is 
getting  out  of  repute  as  the  true  nature  of  commerce  be- 
comes better  understood.  But  it  has  been  hinted  that  the 
promulgation  of  liberal  opinions  on  these  subjects  is  intended 
only  for  a  delusion  upon  other  nations  to  cajole  them  into  the 
folly  of  liberal  ideas,  while  England  retains  to  herself  all  the 
benefits  of  the  admirable  old  system  of  prohibition.  I  have 
never  said  that  prohibitory  laws  did  not  exist  in  England. 
The  question  is,  does  she  owe  her  greatness  and  prosperity 
to  these  laws?  I  venture  to  say,  that  such  is  not  the  opin- 
ion of  public  men  now  in  England,  notwithstanding  tip 
tinuance  of  these  laws.  The  laws  having  eiifi  j',  and 

great  interests  having  been  built  up  on  the  faith  of  thc;n, 
they  cannot  now  be  repealed  without  great  inconvenience. 

It  will  be  wise  in  us  to  take  our  measures  on  subjects  of 
this  kind  with  great  caution.  It  is  one  thing,  by  duties  or 
taxes  on  foreign  articles,  to  awaken  a  home  comp<;titiju  in 


,824.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  181 

the  production  of  the  same  articles  ;  it  is  another  thing  to 
remove  all  competition  by  a  total  exclusion  of  foreign  arti- 
cles. Mr.  Webster  read  copious  extracts  from  speeches  in 
the  British  Parliament  against  the  restrictive  policy,  and  in 
opposition  to  the  theory  that  manufactures  can  not  flourish 
without  restrictions  on  trade. 

Great  Britain  has  relaxed  her  colonial  system  ;  she  hag 
opened  the  ports  of  her  islands,  and  done  away  the  restric- 
tion which  limited  the  trade  of  the  colony  to  the  mother  coun- 
try. Colonial  productions  may  now  be  carried  directly  from 
the  islands  to  any  part  of  Europe.  It  may  be  added  that  Mr. 
Lowe,  whom  the  gentleman  has  cited,  says,  that  nobody  sup- 
poses that  the  three  great  staples  of  English  manufactures, 
cotton,  woolen,  and  hardware,  are  benefited  by  any  existing 
protecting  duties  ;  and  that  one  object  of  these  protecting 
laws  is,  that  they  have  been  intended  to  reconcile  the  vari- 
ous interests  to  taxation  ;  the  corn  law,  for  example,  being 
designed  as  some  equivalent  to  the  agricultural  interest  for 
the  burden  of  tithes  and  of  poor  rates.  I  think  it  is  clear 
that  if  we  now  embrace  the  system  of  prohibitions  and  re- 
strictions, we  shall  show  an  affection  for  what  others  have 
discarded,  and  be  attempting  to  ornament  ourselves  with 
cast  off  apparel. 

I  would  take  notice  also  of  the  recent  proposition  in  Par- 
liament to  abolish  the  tax  on  imported  wool,  and  for  the  same 
reasons  as  have  been  offered  here  against  the  duty  which  we 
propose  on  the  same  article.  They  say  their  manufactures 
require  a  cheap  and  coarse  wool  for  the  supply  of  the  Medi- 
terranean and  Levant  trade,  and  without  a  more  free  admis- 
sion of  the  wool  of  the  continent,  that  trade  will  all  fall  into 
the  hands  of  the  Germans  and  Italians  who  will  carry  it  on 
through  Leghorn  and  Trieste.  While  there  is  this  duty  or 
foreign  wool  to  protect  the  wool-growers  of  England,  then 
is,  on  the  other  hand,  a  prohibition  on  the  exportation  of  the 
native  article  in  aid  of  the  manufacturers.  The  opinion 
seems  to  be  gaining  strength,  that  the  true  policy  is  to  abol- 
ish both. 

Mr.  W.  at  considerable  length  opposed  the  popular  idea 
respecting  the  "  balance  of  trade  ;"  that  if  the  value  of  goods 
imported,  exceed  the  value  of  those  exported,  the  balance  of 
trade  is  against  us.  The  excess  of  imports  over  exports,  he 
said,  usually  showed  the  gains,  not  the  losses  of  trade  ;  or, 
in  a  country  that  not  only  buys  and  sells  goods,  but  employs 
ships  in  carrying  goods  also,  it  shows  the  profits  of  com- 


162  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VII. 

merce  and  the  earnings  of  navigation.  If  the  value  of  com- 
modities imported,  in  a  given  case,  did  not  exceed  the  value 
of  the  outward  cargo  with  which  they  were  purchased,  then 
the  voyage  would  not  have  been  profitable.  He  quoted  from 
a  British  statesman,  that  "  it  is  not  in  the  nature  of  commerce 
to  enrich  one  party  at  the  expense  of  the  other." 

Intimately  connected  with  this  topic,  said  Mr.  W.,  is 
another,  the  exportation  of  specie,  so  much  complained  of. 
Gentlemen  imputed  the  loss  of  market  at  home  to  a  want  of 
money,  and  this  want  of  money  to  the  exportation  of  the  pre- 
cious metals.  We  hear  the  India  and  China  trade  denounc- 
ed as  a  commerce  conducted,  on  our  side,  in  a  great  measure, 
with  gold  and  silver.  There  are  no  shallower  reasoners  than 
those  political  and  commercial  writers,  who  would  represent 
it  to  be  the  only  true  and  gainful  end  of  commerce  to  accu- 
mulate the  precious  metals.  When  the  market  is  overstocked 
with  them,  as  it  often  is,  their  exportation  becomes  as  proper 
and  as  useful  as  that  of  other  commodities  under  similar  cir- 
cumstances. The  honorable  member  from  Pennsylvania  has 
represented  the  country  as  full  of  everything  but  money. 
This  I  take  to  be  a  mistake.  The  agricultural  products  so 
abundant  in  Pennsylvania,  will  not,  he  says,  sell  for  money  ; 
but  they  will  sell  for  money  as  quick  as  for  any  other  article 
which  happens  to  be  in  demand.  They  will  sell  for  money, 
for  example,  as  easily  as  for  coffee  or  for  tea,  at  the  prices 
which  properly  belong  to  those  articles.  The  mistake  lies  in 
imputing  that  to  the  want  of  money,  which  arises  from  want 
of  demand.  Men  do  not  buy  wheat  because  they  have  mon- 
ey, but  because  they  want  wheat. 

Some  gentlemen  have  spoken  of  the  price  paid  for  every 
foreign  manufactured  article  as  so  much,  given  for  the  en- 
couragement of  foreign  labor,  to  the  prejudice  of  our  own. 
But  is  not  every  such  article  the  product  of  our  own  labor 
as  truly  as  if  we  had  actually  manufactured  it  ourselves  ? 
Our  labor  has  earned  it  and  paid  the  price  for  it.  It  is  so 
much  added  to  the  stock  of  national  wealth.  If  the  commod- 
ity were  dollars,  nobody  would  doubt  the  truth  of  this  re- 
mark ;  and  it  is  precisely  as  correct  in  its  application  to  any 
other  commodity  as  to  silver.  One  man  makes  a  yard  of 
cloth  at  home  ;  another  raises  agricultural  products,  and  buys 
a  yard  of  imported  cloth.  Both  are  equally  the  earnings  of 
domestic  industry. 

We  are  asked  if  we  will  give  our  manufactures  no  protec- 
tion. Let  us  not  suppose  that  we  are  beginning  the  proteo 


1824.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BFLL.  163 

tion  of  manufactures  by  duties  on  imports.  The  Government 
has  already  done  much  for  their  protection  ;  and  it  ought  to 
be  presumed  to  have  done  enough,  unless  it  be  shown,  by 
the  facts  and  considerations  applicable  to  each,  that  there  is 
a  necessity  for  doing  more. 

Mr.  W.  examined  the  provisions  of  the  bill  relating  to  par- 
ticular articles,  as  the  woolen  and  cotton  manufacture's  ;  and 
especially  iron  and  hemp,  the  proposed  increase  of  duties  on 
which  would  seriously  affect  the  navigating  interest  by  in- 
creasing the  cost  of  vessels. 

This  speech  of  Mr.  Webster  was  regarded  as  the  ablest 
which  was  made  against  the  bill.  Yet  it  is  worthy  of  remark, 
that  some  of  the  opinions  he  so  ably  maintained,  he  seems, 
but  a  few  years  afterwards,  to  have  greatly  modified,  if  not 
entirely  abandoned.  Arguments  which  lie  used  with  so  much 
force  in  this  debate,  he  opposed  in  subsequent  debates  on 
the  same  subject,  with  his  accustomed  ability.  And  in  1833, 
as  the  reader  will  hereafter  see,  he  was  foremost  in  opposi- 
tion to  Mr.  Clay's  compromise  bill,  for  the  alleged  reason  that 
it  abandoned  the  protective  policy.  A  review  of  some  of  the 
positions  taken  by  him  in  the  foregoing  extracts  from  his 
speech  in  1824,  will  be  found  in  the  latter  part  of  this  volume. 

Mr.  Tod  replied  at  length  to  Mr.  Webster.  The  latter  had 
said  that  the  Speaker  [Mr.  Clay]  had  selected  the  years  of 
former  prosperity  most  favorable  to  his  argument,  in  his 
statements  of  exportation.  Take,  then,  said  Mr.  T.,  a  differ- 
ent set  of  years.  The  yearly  average  quantity  of  grain  and 
flour  exported  for  the  five  years,  1790,  '91,  '92,  '93,  and  '94, 
was  1,421,335  barrels.  The  commercial  statements  of  that 
day  do  not  give  the  value  ;  but  Mr.  Pitkin  has  calculated  the 
value  for  1792  at  $7,649,887.  Our  population,  in  1790,  was 
about  4,000,000.  For  the  last  three  years,  the  yearly  average 
of  our  exportation  has  been  1,177,949  barrels,  at  an  average 
value  of  $5,925,249.  Our  population  is  now  10,000,000  ;  and 
let  it  not  be  forgotten,  that,  at  the  former  period  our  whole 
agricultural  grain-exporting  population  did  not,  probably, 
equal  the  present  population  of  one  single  State.  By  far  the 
greatest  proportion  of  our  increase  of  numbers,  since  1790, 
has  been  to  the  grain-raising  population.  .  .  .  Thus, 
with  all  this  increase  of  numbers  and  capacity,  our  exports 
of  grain  are  reduced,  while  the  importation  of  foreign  manu- 
factures has  been  increasing  with  the  decrease  of  the  facili- 
ties of  payment. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  has  seemed  to  question 
whether  this  diminution  of  exports  shows  any  diminution  of 


164  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VII 

prosperity.  Yet  the  most  vehement  opposers  of  this  bill  op- 
pose it  because  they  apprehend  that  its  effects  rnay  be  to  pre- 
vent the  exportation  of  some  part  of  their  staple,  cotton  ! 
Thus  they  show  that,  as  to  cotton,  at  least,  "  agriculture  with- 
out a  market"  may  be  an  inconvenience.  We  believe  their 
fears  are  groundless  in  supposing  that  domestic  manufac- 
tures are  to  lesnen  the  demand  for  cotton  ;  but  they  are 
right  in  insisting  that  a  defect  of  market  must  be  certainly 
hurtful. 

In  reply  to  the  objection  that  the  bill  would  injure  com- 
merce and  the  navy,  Mr.  T.  spoke  at  considerable  length. 
He  said  :  The  late  war  was  a  war  for  commerce  only.  .  . 
Does  any  one  imagine  that  our  people  who  sustained  that 
commercial  war  with  such  steadiness  and  spirit,  did  so  in 
pursuance  of  doctrines  such  as  we  have  here  now  ?  or  dream- 
ing that,  in  case  of  success,  they  themselves  were  to  be  ex- 
cluded from  every  possible  benefit  of  it  ?  or  after  exerting 
themselves  to  the  utmost,  and  risking  every  thing,  they 
should  come  to  the  merchant,  reinstated  in  his  rights  by  their 
aid  and  their  fidelity,  with  their  hemp,  their  iron,  and  their 
lead,  and  say  to  him  :  "  We  have  no  customers  but  you.  If 
•we  raise  grain,  \ve  have  no  market  for  it.  There  is  nothing 
we  have  to  sell  but  the  things  we  have  here  ;"  and  be  told 
by  the  merchant,  "  True  ;  your  hemp  is  water-rotted  and 
Rtrong  ;  your  iron  is  tough,  and  good  for  cannon,  and 
anchors,  and  shipbolts  ;  but  it  is  all  country  make.  And, 
friends,  you  don't  understand  the  new  light  of  political 
economy  :  it  is  only  when  you  come  in  the  capacity  cf  pur- 
chasers that  we  can  deal  with  you.  We  employ  the  work- 
men and  farmers  of  England,  Wales,  and  Russia,  and  we 
think,  in  the  long  run,  we  can  save  something  to  ourselves 
by  it.  You  have  never  read  Adam  Smith.  Every  man  for 
himself  is  the  only  thing  for  the  country.  Here  it  is  in  the 
book.  In  this  way  we  enrich  ourselves,  as  we  know  ;  and 
\ve  make  the  nation  rich,  as  the  book  shows.  No  monopoly, 
no  restriction,  except  in  our  favor.  Let  us  alone  until 
another  war.  When  the  doctrine  of  Algiers  comes  next  into 
fashion,  with  the  naval  Powers  of  Europe,  or  any  one  of 
them,  you  may  then  have  just  so  much  interest  in  navigation 
as  to  pay  taxes  and  do  the  fighting  for  it." 

Surely  no  manufacturing  or  agricultural  man,  in  that  war 
for  cornmprce,  could  have  been  vsiavc  und  fool  enough  to  con- 
tend in  the  cause,  had  ho  imagined  .hat  there  was  no  com- 
munity of  interests  in  tin's  nation  :  no  advantage  by  com- 


1824.)  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  1G5 

merce  but  to  the  merchant  ;  no  helping1  of  each  other  ;  or, 
if  he  had  foreseen  what  has  since  actually  happened,  that  the 
very  peace  and  commerce  contended  for  with  such  profusion 
of  money  and  of  blood,  should,  with  the  exception  of  a  trifle 
of  profit  to  a  handful  of  merchants,  produce,  after  all,  nothing 
but  prosperity  to  foreign  nations,  and  chiefly  to  Great  Britain, 
with  whom  we  contended,  and  nothing1  but  destruction  and 
death  to  three-fourths  of  the  agricultural,  grain-raising,  and 
manufacturing  interests  of  our  own  country. 

Mr.  Buchanan  replied  at  great  length  to  Mr.  Webster's  re- 
marks relating  to  hemp  and  iron,  he  having  alleged  that  our 
navigation  had  been  left  dependent  on  its  own  resources, 
without  any  protection  from  the  Government ;  and  that  it 
was  unable  to  bear  the  additional  duties  on  hemp  and  iron. 
No  branches  of  domestic  industry,  said  Mr.  B.,  have  ever 
been  cherished  with  so  much  care  as  those  of  ship-building 
aad  navigation.  Although  both  have  suffered  in  tho  general 
depression  of  the  country,  they  are  now  in  a  more  prosperous 
condition  than  any  other  portion  of  domestic  industry  ;  and 
they  are  perfectly  able  and  ought  to  be  willing,  to  bear  the 
acUitional  duty  upon  hemp  and  iron  proposed  b,y  this  bill, 
evun  if  it  should  amount  to  what  the  gentleman  supposes. 

'it  is  fortunate,  said  Mr.  B.,  that  the  first  Congress  did  not 
belong  to  the  politicians  whose  principal  dogmas  are  :  "  Let 
tnde  regulate  itself."  "  Let  not  legislation  attempt  to  di- 
ve ut  industry  or  capital  from  the  channels  in  which  they  are 
nViving,  into  other  branches."  On  the  contrary,  they  be- 
1U  red  that  the  manufacture  of  ships,  and  their  navigation, 
were  interests,  which  required  legislative  protection,  and 
they  afforded  it  in  the  most  effectual  manner.  The  third  act 
ever  passed  by  Congress,  was  that  imposing  duties  on  tun- 
nag-e.  By  the  acts  of  1789  and  1790,  vessels  of  the  United 
St  ites  were  to  pay  a  duty  of  only  6  cents  per  tun  upon  each 
entry,  and  all  other  vessels  50  cents  a  tun,  except  those  built 
within  the  United  States  and  owned  by  foreigners,  which 
were  subject  to  a  duty  of  30  cents  a  tun.  Besides  this,  10 
per  cent,  was  added  to  the  rates  of  duties  imposed  on  goods 
imported  in  ships  and  vessels  not  of  the  United  States. 

[  freely  acknowledge  that  the  wars  in  Europe  and  our 
neutral  condition,  by  placing  within  our  reach  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  carrying  trade  of  other  nations,  assisted  these  dis- 
criminating duties  in  producing  their  effect  upon  our  naviga- 
tion with  such  astonishing  rapidity.  Dr.  Seybert  states, 
that  "  in  1789,  our  shipping  was  not  sufficient  for  the  trans- 


166  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VII. 

portat:on  of  the  domestic  produce  of  the  States  ;  one-third  of 
that  which  was  then  employed  for  that  purpose  belonged  to 
foreigners  ;"  and  that,  "in  1793,  our  tunnage  exceeded  that 
of  every  other  nation  except  Great  Britain."  The  British 
Government  became  alarmed  at  the  rapid  progress  of  our 
navigation  ;  and  to  check  its  augmentation,  they  proposed, 
in  1791,  "  that  British  ships  trading  to  the  ports  of  the  United 
States,  should  be  there  treated,  with  respect  to  the  duties  of 
tunnage  and  impost,  in  like  manner  as  ships  of  the  United 
States  should  be  treated  in  Great  Britain."  By  this  means, 
they  expected  to  crush  our  navigation  in  its  infancy,  and  ob- 
tain a  monopoly  of  our  trade.  They  were  convinced  that  our 
navigation  could  not  then  endure  a  competition  writh  the  long 
established  navigation  of  Great  Britain. 

But  the  statesmen  of  that  day  did  not  adopt  the  principle 
that  trade  should  regulate  itself.  No  ;  they  cherished  and 
•nourished  our  navigation  in  its  infancy  by  protecting  duties  ; 
and  thus  infused  into  it  such  energy  and  vigor,  that  it  can 
now,  upon  equal  terms,  challenge  competition  with  the  world. 
The  same  kind  of  protection  will  produce  the  same  effect 
upon  the  manufactories  which  this  bill  proposes  to  encourage. 

Mr.  B.  gave  a  history  of  our  arrangements  with  Great 
Britain,  and  the  increase  of  our  tunnage,  during  the  contest 
respecting  navigation  ;  and  then  proceeded  : 

Our  bold  policy  finally  triumphed,  and,  on  the  24th  of  June, 
1822,  an  act  of  the  British  Parliament  repealed  their  colonial 
system  in  favor  of  the  United  States,  and  opened  their  ports  in 
the  West  Indies  and  North  America  to  our  vessels.  Yet  the 
navigating  interest  complains  that  they  have  been  left  un- 
protected by  the  Government  to  struggle  against  the  world. 
I  was  astonished  to  hear  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
say,  that  this  concession,  made  by  the  British  Government  in 
favor  of  our  navigation,  was  an  evidence  that  they  were  r1  - 
parting  from  their  restrictive  system.  No,  sir  ;  if  it  proves 
any  thing,  it  proves  the  efficiency  of  this  system.  This  con- 
cession was  extorted  from  them  by  our  countervailing  re- 
strictions, and  shows  the  power  of  that  policy,  when  properly 
exercised,  to  obtain  justice  from  foreign  nations. 

I  will  mention  another  example  of  the  care  of  the  Govern- 
ment for  its  navigation.  France,  after  she  had  extricated 
herself  from  her  long  wars,  to  obtain  the  exclusive  privilege 
of  carrying  those  of  our  productions  which  she  used  in  her 
manufactures,  imposed  discriminating  duties  in  favor  of  cot- 
ton, tobacco,  and  potashes,  imported  in  her  own  vessels, 


1824.]  DEBATE  ON  THE  BILL.  167 

which  are  equivalent  to  a  tunnage  duty  of  from  $18  to  $21 
per  tun.  Our  navigating  interest  took  the  alarm,  and 
memorialized  Congress.  Congress,  on  the  15th  of  May,  1820, 
passed  an  act  imposing  a  countervailing  duty  of  $18  a  tun 
upon  all  French  vessels  entering  the  ports  of  the  United 
States.  The  consequence  of  this  measure  was  the  suspension, 
in  a  great  degree,  of  the  direct  trade  between  us  and  France. 
That  profitable  branch  of  our  commerce  was  sacrificed  to 
promote  the  interests  of  our  navigation.  Our  countervailiE/g 
duties,  however,  produced  the  desired  effect.  On  the  24th  v>f 
June,  1822 — the  very  day  on  which  the  British  Parliament 
opened  their  colonial  ports  to  our  vessels,  the  convention  with 
France  was  concluded,  which  placed  our  carrying  trade  with 
that  country  upon  a  fair  and  reciprocal  basis. 

Mr.  B.,  in  reply  to  Mr  Webster's  objection,  that  the  duties 
on  the  hemp  and  iron  would  increase  the  cost  of  ship-build- 
ing, said  :  The  navigation  is  able  to  bear  the  additional  duty, 
and  considering  what  was  done  for  it,  ought  to  bear  it  for 
the  common  good  ;  though  I  do  riot  admit  that  it  will  con- 
tinue to  be  an  additional  burden  upon  that  interest.  The 
domestic  competition  will,  in  a  few  years,  reduce  the  price  of 
both  hemp  and  iron. 

These  additional  duties  cannot  injure  the  tunnage  of  the 
coasting  trade,  which  is  nearly  equal  to  the  foreign  trade, 
and  which  must  increase  rapidly.  It  enjoys  a  monopoly. 
It  will  therefore  sustain  no  loss,  because,  as  you  enhance  the 
price  of  the  vessel,  you  will  increase  the  freight.  The  case 
might  be  different,  if  foreign  competition  were  not  altogether 
excluded. 

The  Mercantile  Society  of  New  York  stated  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Manufactures,  that  "foreign  vessels  would  not 
have  a  preference,  in  our  ports,  over  American  vessels,  unless 
at  a  reduction  in  freight  of  25  per  cent.,  or  an  advantage 
equivalent,  at  the  port  of  destination."  How,  then,  can  the 
additional  duty  upon  the  hemp  and  iron — increasing  the  cost 
of  a  ship  of  300  tuns  burden  only  $290 — seriously  injure  our 
navigation  ? 

The  gentleman  has  urged,  that  if  the  demand  is  supplied 
by  the  domestic  article,  the  navigating  interest  would  lo^ie 
their  freight  from  Russia  and  Sweden.  Shall  we  be  com- 
pelled to  purchase  articles  abroad  to  increase  the  employment 
of  navigation  ?  Are  all  the  other  interests  to  be  sacrificed, 
that  the  welfare  of  this  one  may  be  promoted  ?  It  appears 
to  me  that  the  bare  statement  of  this  argument  is  its  best 
refutation. 


168  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap  VII. 

We  can  not  extend  our  abstract  of  the  debate  to  the  duties 
on  other  articles.  The  opposition  to  the  general  system  was 
strongly  marked,  on  the  part  of  many  members,  and  even 
vehement,  on  the  part  of  some  of  them,  as  will  appear  from 
expressions  like  the  following,  which  we  give,  that  the  reader 
may  see  how  far  they  have  been  verified  or  disproved  by  the 
results  of  the  protective  policy.  "  Your  agriculture  and  com- 
merce must  become  tributary  to  manufactures."  "  This  is  the 
new,  the  grand  system  of  policy  which  you  propose  to  force 
upon  the  good  people  of  the  United  States.  You  will  soon 
find  your  impotence  and  weakness  in  the  attempt."  "Before 
you  can  effect  this,  you  must  make  the  people  slaves."  "  You 
mjiy»  by  3'our  restrictions,  fetter  their  enterprise  for  a  short 
period  ;  you  may  legislate  them  into  adversity,  but  you  can 
not  legislate  them  into  prosperity."  "  Every  attempt  of  Gov- 
ernment to  regulate  the  employment  of  capital  or  enterprise 
is  mischievous."  While  we  are  destroying  our  commerce  in 
the  wretched  attempt  to  foster  our  manufactures  by  law, 
Europe  will  monopolize  the  whole  trade  with  the  South 
American  States  ;  and  we  shall  find,  to  our  cost,  that  there 
is  no  foreign  market  for  our  manufactures  which  have  been 
nursed  with  so  much  care  in  this  hot-bed  system  ;  but  we 
must  be  compelled  to  use  our  own  manufactures,  and  agricul- 
ture must  pay  the  increased  price.  Will  this  furnish  a  mar- 
ket; for  your  surplus  produce  ?  Will  this  encourage  domestic 
industry  ?" 

On  the  14th  of  April,  1824,  the  bill  was  ordered  to  a  third 
reading,  by  a  vote  of  105  to  102  ;  as  follows  : 

2faine :  Yea,  1;  nays,  6.  New  Hampshire:  Yea,  1;  nays,  5.  Massa- 
chusetts: Yea.  1 ;  nays.  11.  Rhode  Island:  Yeas,  2.  Connecticut:  Yeas, 
6;  nay,  1.  Vermont:  Yeas,  5.  New  York:  Yeas,  26;  nays,  8.  New 
Jersey:  Yeas,  6.  Pennsylvania:  Yeas,  24 ;  nay,  1.  Delaware:  Yea,  1. 
Maryland:  Yeas,  3 ;  nays,  6.  Virginia:  Yea,  1;  nays,  21.  North  Caro- 
lina: Nays,  13.  South  Carolina :  Nays,  9.  Georgia:  Nays,  7.  Kentucky: 
Yeas,  11.  Tennessee:  Yeas,  2  ;  nays,  7.  Ohio:  Yeas,  14.  Indiana :  Yeas, 
2.  Illinois:  Yea,  1.  Louisiana:  Nays,  3.  Mississippi:  Nay,  1.  Alaba- 
ma: Nays,  3.  Missouri:  Yea,  1. 

Had  all  the  members  been  present,  and  had  the  Speaker 
voted,  there  would  have  been  110  yeas,  and  102  nays.  On 
the  final  passage  of  the  bill,  the  vote  was  the  same,  except 
that  two  of  the  friends  of  the  bill  who  were  absent  on  the 
former  vote,  were  present,  and  voted  for  it,  making  the  num- 
ber of  yeas,  107— a  majority  of  5. 

It  is  seen  from  the  foregoing  record  of  votes,  that  Maine, 
New  Hampshire,  and  Massachusetts,  which  were  navigating 


1824.]  VOTES  ON  THE  PASSAGE  OF  THE  BILL.  1C9 

and  fishing1  States,  were  almost  unanimous  against  the  tariff. 
Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut,  manufacturing  States,  were 
in  favor  of  it,  with  a  single  exception  from  the  latter.  Also 
the  grain  producing  States,  Vermont,  New  York,  New  Jer- 
sey, Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illi- 
nois, and  Missouri,  were  nearly  three  to  one  in  favor  of  pro- 
tection, from  its  supposed  benefit  to  agriculture.  The  plant- 
ing States  generally,  then,  as  since,  having  an  unfailing 
market  abroad  for  their  great  staples,  were  united  with  the 
navigating  and  fishing  States  against  the  tariff.  By  this  act 
Eastern  capital  was  directed  more  to  manufactures  ;  and 
since  that  time,  the  Eastern  and  Southern  States  have  taken 
opposite  sides  on  the  tariff  question. 

In  the  Senate,  sundry  amendments  were  made  to  the  bill, 
to  some  of  which  the  House  disagreed  ;  and  entire  concur- 
rence was  not  effected  until  after  a  Committee  of  Conference 
had  been  appointed. 

The  bill  passed  the  Senate  as  amended,  and  before  it  was 
sent  to  the  House  for  concurrence  in  the  amendments,  by  a 
vote  of  25  to  21,  as  follows  : 

Maine :  Yeas,  2.  New  Hampshire :  Yea,  1 ;  nay,  1.  Massachusetts  : 
Nays,  2.  Rhode  Island :  Yeas,  2.  Connecticut :  Yeas,  2.  Vermont :  Yeas, 
2.  New  York:  Yea,  1 ;  nay,  1.  Netv  Jersey:  Yeas,  2.  Pennsylvania: 
Yeas,  2.  Delaware:  Nays, '2.  Maryland:  Nay,  1.  Virginia:  Nays,  2. 
North  Carolina:  Nays,  2.  South  Carolina:  Nays,  2.  Georgia:  Nays,  2. 
Kentucky  :  Yeas,  2.  Tennessee :  Yeas,  2.  Ohio:  Yeas,  2.  Indiana : 'Yeas, 
2.  Illinois:  Yea,  1.  Louisiana:  Nays,  2.  Mississippi:  Nays,  2.  Alaba- 
ma :  Nays.  2.  Missouri :  Yeas,  2. 

[For  the  rates  of  duties  imposed  by  this  act,  see  Compara- 
tive Statement  of  the  several  tariff  laws,  near  the  end  of  this 
vo  lume.} 


170  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VIEL 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

The  "  Woolens  Bill"  of  1827  introduced  by  Mr.  Mallary.    Debate  on  the  Bill. 
Bill  passed  by  the  House.    Defeated  in  the  Senate  by  being  laid  on  the  table. 

IN  January,  1827,  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  proposing  additional  protection  to  wool  and 
woolen  manufactures  ;  not  by  a  direct  increase  of  duties,  but 
in  a  manner  which  will  soon  be  made  to  appear. 

Immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  Tariff  act  of  1824,  the 
English  manufacturers  prosecuted  their  business  with  un- 
usual activity,  and  flooded  our  country  with  their  fabrics, 
which  were  sold  for  a  time  at  great  profit.  Many  of  our  own 
citizens,  anticipating  adequate  protection  from  that  act,  and 
encouraged  by  the  success  of  the  British  manufacturers,  made 
large  investments  in  manufactories.  The  quantity  of  British 
goods  imported  having  vastly  exceeded  the  demand,  they 
were  disposed  of  at  forced  sales  in  this  country,  at  a  great 
sacrifice  to  the  foreign  manufacturer,  and  to  the  serious  em- 
bairassment  of  the  domestic  manufacturer.  Against  such  a 
state  of  things,  the  latter  had  no  protection  ;  and  memorials 
on  the  subject,  and  petitions  for  relief,  were  addressed  to 
Congress. 

The  duties  on  woolens  were  not  considered  insufficient  in 
amount  ;  their  inadequacy  consisted  in  their  nature,  and  the 
manner  in  which  they  were  determined.  Being  ad  valorem 
duties,  or  duties  according  to  the  value  of  the  article,  the 
English  manufacturer  was  enabled  to  evade,  in  part,  the  du- 
ties to  which  they  were  fairly  subject,  by  false  invoices,  or 
bills,  in  which  they  were  entered  at  prices  below  their  real 
value  in  England.  By  this  means  our  revenue  was  defraud- 
ed, and  protection  to  our  manufacturers  was  defeated  ;  the 
foreign  manufacturer  being  enabled  to  undersell  them  in  the 
American  market,  in  consequence  of  the  saving  to  himself  of 
a  part  of  the  duty.  It  was  the  policy  of  the  British  manu- 
facturers, after  they  had  supplied  other  markets,  to  throw 
their  remaining  surplus  into  our  market,  to  be  sold  at  such 
prices  as  could  be  obtained.  Although  these  prices'  were 
sometimes  below  cost,  the  loss  was  more  than  compensated 
by  the  depression  of  American  manufactures,  which  was  to 
the  English  manufacturer  an  important  object. 


1627.]  THE  WOOLENS  BILL.  171 

By  the  tariff  act  of  1824,  the  duty  on  imported  woolen 
goods  had  been  raised  8  per  cent.,  and  on  wool,  15  per  cent. 
No  wool  was  exported  from  this  country  to  Europe  ;  but 
more  than  one-third  of  the  quantity  manufactured  here,  was 
imported  from  European  countries,  subject  to  a  duty  of  30 
per  cent.,  while  our  manufacturers  enjoyed  a  mere  nominal 
protection  of  33J  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  We  say  nominal,  be- 
cause, as  the  goods  were  invoiced  below  their  value  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  British  manufacturer,  the  duty  was  virtually 
determined  by  the  party  paying  it,  and  afforded  little  or  no 
protection.  It  was  not  to  be  expected  that,  in  a  large  man- 
ufacturing country  like  England,  the  products  of  labor  would 
be  measured  by  the  exact  extent  of  the  demand.  The  sur- 
plus was  sent  to  the  United  States.  By  the  removal  of  this 
surplus  from  the  home  market,  the  English  manufacturers 
had  been  enabled  to  maintain  high  prices  on  the  residue, 
while  the  value  of  all  similar  goods  had  been  reduced  here 
to  the  injury  of  the  domestic  manufacturer. 

The  manufacturers,  however,  did  not  ask  either  for  an  in- 
crease or  a  reduction  of  the  duty  on  wool.  Nor  did  they  ask 
for  an  increase  of  the  ad  valorem  duty  on  woolen  goods,  if  reg- 
ulations existed  which  should  effectually  prevent  the  evasion 
of  the  laws.  This  could  be  effected  only  by  changing  the 
mode  of  determining  the  ad  valorem  duty,  or  by  adopting  a 
minimum  duty,  which  it  was  impossible  to  evade.  In  some 
large  establishments  in  New  England,  half  the  machinery 
was  said  to  be  idle  ;  and  some  of  that  which  had  been  com- 
pleted was  not  to  be  put  into  operation,  until  it  could  be 
done  under  more  favorable  auspices. 

On  the  27th  of  January,  1827,  Mr.  Mallary,  of  Vermont, 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  reported  a  bill 
"  for  the  alteration  of  the  acts  imposing  duties  on  imports," 
familiarly  called,  "  the  woolens  bill."  This  bill  proposed  no 
change  in  the  nominal  rate  of  duty,  which  was  33  J  per  cent.; 
but  it  provided  for  estimating  the  duties  on  the  minimum  prin- 
ciple ;  which  is  done  by  requiring  all  goods  not  exceeding 
in  value  a  certain  price,  to  be  taken  to  have  cost  such  price, 
and  the  duty  to  be  charged  accordingly.  [See  definition  of 
minimum,  p.  69,  note.] 

The  minimum  prices  fixed  by  the  bill  were  40  cents  ; 
$2  50,  and  $4.  That  is,  all  goods  manufactured  in  whole  or 
in  part  of  wool,  and  not  exceeding  in  value  40  cents  at  the 
place  whence  imported,  must  be  deemed  and  taken  to  have 
cost  40  cents  the  square  yard,  and  charged  with  the  present 


172  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VIII. 

rate  of  duty,  33  J  per  cent.  If  the  value  exceeded  40  cents, 
and  did  not  exceed  $2  50,  the  goods  must  be  deemed  to  have' 
cost  $2  50  ;  and  if  the  value  exceeded  $2  50,  they  must  be 
deemed  to  have  cost  $4  ;  and  the  duties  charged  accordingly. 

Unmanufactured  wool,  then  subject  to  a  duty  of  30  per 
cent.,  was  to  be  charged,  after  June,  1828,  35  per  cent.,  and 
after  June  1829,  40  per  cent.  All  wool  exceeding  in  value 
10  cents,  and  not  exceeding  40  cents  a  pound,  was  to  be 
deemed  to  have  cost  40  cents,  and  charged  with  these  rates 
of  duty.  Wool  less  than  10  cents,  was,  by  the  act  of  1824, 
15  per  cent.,  on  which  no  alteration  was  proposed. 

The  bill  was  taken  up  on  the  17th  of  January. 

Mr.  Mallary  explained  and  advocated  the  bill  in  a  speech 
of  considerable  length,  and  containing  much  valuable  infor- 
mation. He  said  the  subject  had  been  pressed  upon  the  con- 
sideration of  Congress  by  memorials  from  different  parts  of 
the  United  States.  The  memorialists  were  from  both  the  ag- 
ricultural and  manufacturing  classes  of  the  people. 

From  the  information  given  to  the  Committee,  he  estimated 
the  capital  invested  in  the  woolen  manufacture  at  about  $40- 
000,000,  and  the  number  of  persons  employed  in  the  business, 
at  60,000.  This  was  the  manufacturing  interest. 

He  next  presented  the  agricultural  interest.  The  number 
of  sheep  in  the  United  States  was  about  16,000,000.  He  con- 
sidered that  10,000,000  of  these  had  been  added  from  the  de- 
mands of  the  woolen  manufactories  of  the  country.  He  esti- 
mated the  10,000,000  at  $2  each,  which  was  a  low  estimate 
if  any  encouragement  existed  for  the  raw  material.  This 
vrould  make  the  value  of  the  flocks  dependent  upon  the  man- 
ufacturer, $20,000,000.  The  establishments  consumed  annu- 
ally at  least  30,000,000  pounds  of  wool,  which,  at  35  cents  a 
pound,  would  be  above  $10,000,000.  Allowing  four  sheep  to 
the  acre,  they  would  require  2,500,000  acres,  which,  at  $8  per 
acre,  would  make  $20,000,000.  The  result  was  that  the  agricul- 
tural interest  had  at  least  $40,000,000,  and  the  manufacturers 
as  much  more,  making,  together,  $80,000,000  capital,  involv- 
ed in  the  question  of  protecting  the  domestic  manufacture. 

An  advantage  of  wool-growing  was,  that  it  gave  a  value 
to  hills  and  mountains,  and  sections  remote  from  navigable 
rivers  and  good  roads.  No  other  produce  would  so  well  pay 
transportation  to  market,  as  no  other  article  was  so  valuable 
in  proportion  to  its  weight  Nor  did  it  interfere  with  other 
employments.  Our  markets  were  filled  to  overflowing  with 
agricultural  products.  So  much  capital  as  has  been  stated, 


1827.]  DEBATE  ON  WOOLENS  BILL.  173 

has  been  added  to  the  landed  interest.  So  much  for  that 
great  interest  immediately  dependent  for  its  principal  value 
on  manufactures. 

He  next  showed  how  much  other  branches  of  agriculture 
were  interested.  The  farmers  of  the  House,  and  especially 
gentlemen  from  the  Middle  and  Southern  States,  were  re- 
quested to  notice  his  statements.  In  one  manufactory  em- 
ploying 260  persons,  300  barrels  of  flour  were  consumed  in 
the^year  1826.  This  was  obtained  from  New  York,  and  Pe- 
tersburg, Virginia,  and  intermediate  ports.  There  were  im- 
ported into  Boston,  in  1826,  281,000  barrels  ;  of  which,  72,- 
777  were  exported,  leaving  nearly  209,000  for  consumption. 
The  quantity  imported  into  other  New  England  States,  was 
about  twice  as  much  as  was  imported  into  Boston,  making 
629,000  barrels  for  that  section  of  the  Union.  The  value,  at 
$5  50  per  barrel,  amounts  to  $3,480,000.  He  produced  a 
statement  showing  that  119,202  barrels  were  received  from 
Baltimore,  and  91,000  from  Virginia.  This  he  asked  gentle- 
men to  notice.  The  remainder  was  from  New  York,  Phila- 
delphia, and  the  rest  of  the  coast.  Upwards  of  200,000  bar- 
rels of  Virginia  flour  were  consumed  annually  in  New  Eng- 
land. These  facts  were  worthy  of  consideration  by  the  farm- 
ers of  Virginia.  How  was  this  produce  obtained  ?  How 
was  payment  made  ?  Let  every  gentleman  answer  for  him- 
self. There  were  imported  into  Boston,  in  December  last, 
from  the  Southern  and  Middle  States,  80,000  bushels  of  corn. 
In  proportion  to  the  estimate  on  flour,  the  quantity  taken  in 
all  New  England  would  almost  exceed  belief. 

Now,  said  Mr.  M.,  examine  the  exports  of  flour  to  Europe. 
In  1825,  they  did  not  exceed  56,675  barrels.  New  England, 
as  we  have  seen,  consumes  629,000.  We  exported,  in  1825, 
to  all  parts  of  the  world,  813,000,  and  in  1826,  853,000  bar 
rels.  In  1825,  we  exported  to  the  British  West  Indies,  114,- 
000  barrels  ;  to  Cuba,  109,000  ;  and  to  Brazil,  134,000. We 
send  now  and  then  a  cargo  of  flour  to  Valparaiso  and  Lima. 
The  arrival — the  price,  high  or  low — is  reported  through  the 
nation,  as  if  its  fate  was  involved.  But  the  steady,  silent, 
valuable  market  of  New  England,  attracts  little  attention. 
Annihilate  this  grer.t  market,  and  the  effects  which  would 
follow  would  convince  the  farmers  of  Maryland  and  Virginia, 
that  the  New  England  market  was  of  immense  advantage. 
Destroy  the  manufacturing  interest,  and  the  means  of  the 
North  to  purchase  would  at  onco  cease. 

Mr.  M.  said  he  would  now  call  attention   to  the   cotton 


174  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.   VIII. 

manufacture.  Mr.  Gallatin,  in  1811,  estimated  the  quan* 
tity  of  cotton  manufactured  in  the  United  States,  at  $3,- 
600,000  Ibs.  The  value  of  the  yarn  at  90  cents  per  pound, 
was  3,240  000.  In  1816,  the  capital  employed  in  manufac- 
tures, was  estimated  at  $40,000,000.  The  cotton  used  was 
estimated  at  90,000  bales.  The  capital  must  have  doub- 
led since  that  time.  The  quantity  of  the  raw  material 
now  consumed,  can  not  be  less  than  180,000  bales,  or  54,- 
000,000  pounds.  The  value  of  the  fabric,  at  50  cents  the 
pound,  amounts  to  $27,000,000.  The  value,  it  is  believed,  is 
much  more.  Establishments  are  reared  in  almost  every  sec- 
tion of  the  Northern  part  of  the  Union,  from  Maine  to  the 
new  States  of  the  West.  Everybody  uses  the  fabric,  be- 
cause everybody  can  pay.  He  gives  in  exchange  the  pro- 
ducts of  his  farm,  of  his  labor,  that  would  be  worth  little  or 
nothing  if  he  depended  upon  a  seaboard  market.  Stop  the 
manufacturer  ;  throw  the  180,000  bales  of  cotton  into  Eu- 
rope ;  the  effect  must  be  two-fold  ;  you  glut  the  market  there  ; 
diminish  consumption  here  ;  for  you  deprive  most  of  the  peo- 
ple of  the  interior  of  the  means  of  purchase. 

It  was  feared  by  many,  on  the  passage  of  the  tariff  of  1824, 
that  commerce  and  navigation  would  be  deeply  injured. 
These  fears  had  proved  groundless.  The  trade  in  flour  and 
grain,  and  other  commodities  of  the  South,  transported  to 
the  North,  in  exchange  for  the  productions  of  that  portion  of 
the  Union,  has  gained  with  surprising  rapidity.  Communi- 
cations between  Louisiana  and  New  England,  are  now  as 
regular,  as  valuable,  as  between  Glasgow  and  London,  Ly- 
ons and  Paris.  Let  gentlemen  bear  in  mind  the  cause.  Let 
us  see  whether  commerce  has  been  injured  or  benefited.  See 
the  condition  of  our  exports  of  the  great  staples  of  the  coun- 
try, except  cotton : 

1821.  1823.  1826. 

Fisheries,  -  -  -  $1,499,000  $1.685,000  $924,000 
Lumber,  -  -  -  3,974,000  4,498,000  2,301,000 
Wheat,  flour  and  biscuit,  4,476,000  5,151,000  4,400,000 
Tobacco,  -  -  -  5,648,000  6,382,000  5,215,000 
At  best,  some  articles  have  remained  stationary,  while  oth- 
ers have  decreased  in  a  great  proportion. 

Now  sec  whether  our  commerce  has  been  injured  by  our 
domestic  manufactures.  We  exported  of  these  in 

1821,         $2,754,030.  1824,  $4,480,000. 

18±J.          3,120,000.  1825,  5,700,000. 

1823,          3,139,000.  '  1826,  above  6,000,000. 


1827.]  DEBATE  ON  WOOLENS  BILL.  175 

A  comparison  of  this  statement  of  the  exports  of  our  man- 
ufactures with  that  of  the  exports  of  agricultural  products, 
upon  which  this  nation  has  placed  the  greatest  reliance, 
proves  that  our  manufactures  aiford  the  most  efficient  aid  to 
our  commerce.  So  much  has  been  added  to  its  operations, 
while  agriculture  continues  to  supply  all  foreign  demand 
Where  manufactures  flourish,  the  effects  are  seen  in  dwellings, 
in  the  cultivation  of  farms,  in  schools,  roads,  public  accom- 
modations, and  every  thing  that  gives  value  to  society.  The 
interior  is  especially  benefited.  Markets  are  created  where 
none  existed  before,  nor  would  ever  exist  but  from  this  cause. 
These  markets  equalize  the  value  of  property,  by  giving  val 
ue  to  all  the  productions  of  the  ordinary  industry  of  the  peo- 
ple. The  great  capital  now  employed  in  the  woolen  manu- 
facture, is  in  jeopardy.  Nothing  but  the  paternal  arm  of  the 
Government  can  save  it.  The  great  agricultural  interest  de- 
pending on  it,  also  claims  the  interposition  of  our  common 
Government. 

One  great  cause  of  the  present  depression  of  our  manufac- 
tures, is  that  spirit  of  domination  which  impels  England  to 
control  the  trade  and  navigation  of  the  world.  It  is  now 
propelled  by  a  national  distress  unparalleled  in  her  annals. 
Manufactures  laid  the  foundation  of  her  wealth.  Her  at- 
tempts to  push  them  to  too  great  an  extent,  recoil  upon  her- 
self whenever  other  nations  refuse  to  surrender  to  her  inter- 
est and  policy.  Driven  from  the  ports  of  her  former  subser- 
vient customers,  she  must  now  seek  new  marts  at  all  haz- 
ards. At  the  close  of  the  late  European  war,  free  trade  was 
the  order  of  the  day.  England  poured  into  the  markets  of 
some  of  the  great  nations  of  Europe  the  products  of  her  in- 
dustry. The  effects  were  irresistible  without  the  aid  of  the 
respective  Governments.  They  did  interpose.  The  follow- 
ing statement  shows  the  loss  to  England  in  those  countries, 
and  the  cause  of  her  efforts  in  other  parts  of  the  world.  In 
six  years,  ending  with  1822,  she  sent,  in  all  her  productions, 

To  Russia,    £14,000,000.       To  France,  £7,600,000. 

Holland,     12,000,000.  United  States,  38,333,000. 

Prussia,       6,000,000. 

Of  woolens,  her  whole  export  in  1825,  was  about  $30,750,- 
000.  The  United  States  received  about  $10,716,000,  one- 
third  of  all  that  England  sent  abroad. 

Of  hardware,  she  sent 


176  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM  [Chap.  VIII. 

In  1819,  to  Russia,    £67,000   In  1824,  to  Russia,    £20,000 

Germany,    87,000  Germany,  74,000 

Prussia,        9,000  Prussia,       3,000 

United  States,  460,000  United  States,  488,000 

Thus  the  value  of  our  markets  to  England  is  apparent. 
Her  manufacturers  must  desire  to  retain  what  they  have,  and 
to  gain  what  they  have  lost  by  our  own  citizens.  In  order 
to  exclude  our  cotton  fabrics  from  certain  South  American 
ports,  the  English  manufacturer  had  prepared  others,  of  a 
poor  quality,  but  with  the  marks  and  appearance  of  genuine 
American  goods,  and  thrown  them  into  the  markets  ;  and 
thus  greatly  injured,  for  a  time,  the  reputation  of  our  manu- 
factures. In  the  United  States,  the  cotton  trade  is  safe,  so 
far  as  protection  is  afforded.  Foreign  ingenuity,  thus  far, 
has  been  unable  to  elude  our  minimum  duty. 

But  among  the  more  immediate  causes  of  the  depression  of 
our  woolen  manufactures,  is  the  evasion  of  the  ad  valorem 
duty.  The  value  is  placed  upon  the  fabric  abroad,  by  per- 
sons, in  interest.  The  manufacturer  appoints  as  his  agent  in 
the  United  States,  one  of  his  own  countrymen.  He  makes 
his  invoice  as  he  pleases,  and  takes  his  formal  oath.  He 
must  best  know  the  value  of  this  fabric,  and  it  can  not 
be  disproved  here.  There  is  ample  evidence,  that  goods  are 
thus  sent  which  do  not  pay  the  amount  of  duty  which  the 
tariff  demands. 

The  American  merchant  is  driven  from  the  trade.  It  was 
estimated,  in  1820,  by  the  Mercantile  Society  in  New  York, 
i^t  four-fifths  of  the  dry  goods  imported  from  the  United 
Kingdom,  were  on  foreign  account.  There  were  23,606  pack- 
ages in  all  ;  18,674  on  foreign,  and  4,932  on  American  ac- 
count. Our  merchants  are  daily  giving  up  that  branch  of 
business  ;  the  foreigner  daily  gaining  ground.  The  foreign 
manufacturer  will  not  sell  his  goods  to  our  merchants  on 
the  same  terms  as  those  on  which  he  sends  them  to  this 
country.  He  can  evade  the  duties  ;  the  American  merchant 
will  not,  dare  not.  He  has  a  reputation,  a  standing  in  society, 
which  he  will  not  foreit. 

It  has  also  been  satisfactorily  shown,  that  cloths  in  an  un- 
finished state,  are  introduced  at  a  low  rate  of  valuation,  and 
afterwards  finished  by  persons  in  English  employ.  Mr.  M. 
said  he  had  recently  been  informed  by  a  New  York  merchant, 
that  flannels  for  broad  cloths  were  now  introduced,  sent  to 
an  establishment,  there  dressed,  and  then  sent  to  market. 
An  experienced  manufacturer  has  answered  my  inquiries  as 


1827.J  DEBATE  ON  WOOLENS  BILL.  177 

to  the  difference  of  duties  which  would  be  paid  on  the  flannel 
and  the  cloth.  The  flannel,  26  yards  of  which  would  make 
20  yards  of  cloth,  might  be  passed  at  the  custom  house  for  a 
duty  on  the  whole,  of $979 

The  duty  on  the  cloth  valued  at  $8  a  yard, 61  33 

Difference, $51  54 

Another  cause  of  the  depression  of  our  manufactures  is  the 
great  irregularity  of  trade.  When  the  home  manufacturer 
has  the  home  market,  supply  will  always  accommodate  itself 
to  demand.  He  knows  the  capacity  of  the  country  to  pro- 
duce, and  regulates  his  business  accordingly.  He  is  not 
overwhelmed  with  a  sudden  influx  of  fabrics  which  produces 
universal  confusion.  Mr.  M.  quoted  from  a  popular  work  the 
remark,  that  "  it  is  notoriously  among  the  tactics  of  traders, 
to  sell  at  a  prodigious  loss  to  ruin  their  rivals,  if  they  see  a 
possibility  of  doing  it ;  and,  in  this  case,  they  might  accom- 
plish it  and  get  a  profit,"  &c. 

Mr.  M.  also  mentioned  credits  for  duties  at  the  custom 
house.  These  are  converted  into  cash  for  the  benefit  of  the 
foreign  manufacturer.  They  were  equal  to  the  same  amount 
advanced  from  the  National  Treasury. 

Auction  sales,  also,  increase  the  evils  of  irregularity  in 
trade.  At  any  moment,  foreigners  may  dash  into  our  market 
any  quantity  of  goods,  and  for  any  purpose.  For  instance, 
in  July  lost,  American  goods  of  a  particular  quality  were 
sold  in  the  Philadelphia  market  for  $2  50  to  $2  60  per  yard. 
In  September,  goods  of  the  same  kind  were  sold  $1  90  to  $2 
per  yard  ;  making  a  fluctuation  of  30  per  cent.  At  the  latter 
period,  a  large  amount  of  English  fabrics  were  thrown  into 
market,  and  produced  the  ruinous  fluctuation.  Whenever  the 
foreign  manufacturer  has  a  surplus,  he  will  not  overcharge 
his  own  market.  This  would  produce  a  general  reduction  on 
all  in  the  market  at  the  time.  He  sends  that  surplus  abroad. 
If  he  must  sell  at  a  loss,  it  is  better  to  do  it  in  a  foreign 
country.  He  accomplishes  a  double  object  ;  he  saves  his 
home  market,  and  throws  confusion  into  the  other.  The  ef- 
fect of  a  surplus  is  well  known  in  this  country.  If  the 
market  requires  ten  millions,  we  produce  nine.  The- foreigner 
supplies  the  other  ;  but  afterwards  sends  two  millions  more. 
The  effect  is  to  reduce  the  whole  30  per  cent.,  as  in  the  case 
stated.  Then,  on  the  "tactics"  of  foreign  manufacturers,  the 
foreigner  loses  his  30  per  cent,  on  two  millions  ;  the  Ameri- 
can 30  per  cent,  on  nine.  It  is  now  known  in  Liverpool  as 
well  as  in  the  United  States,  that  our  manufactures  are  giv- 

8* 


178  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VI II. 

ing  way.  The  great  object  of  the  foreigner  is  about  to  be 
realized.  No  effort  will  be  wanting,  if  it  cost  millions,  to 
overwhelm  our  already  half-ruined  establishments.  It  seems 
to  me  the  Government  will  not  refuse  the  aid  which  can  so 
easily  be  afforded. 

One  of  the  arguments  of  Mr.  M.  in  favor  of  the  proposed 
aid,  was,  that  without  it  manufacturers  must  abandon  their 
business  ;  five  or  ten  millions  worth  of  the  fabric  would  be 
withdrawn  from  the  market ;  and  prices  must  advance. 
England  would  monopolize  the  market,  and  continue  to  be 
the  mistress  of  our  trade.  The  manufacturer's  capital  would 
perish  ;  and  the  farmer  would  suffer.  Let  those  employed  in 
manufactures  engage  in  agricultural  pursuits,  and  become 
producers  instead  of  being  only  the  consumers  of  agricultural 
products  ;-and  the  market  for  the  farmer's  surplus  produce 
would  be  destroyed,  and  be  subject  to  the  same  fluctuation 
as  that  of  the  fabric  of  the  manufacturer. 

But  we  may  be  told,  said  Mr.  M.,  that  the  measure  pro- 
posed would  create  a  monopoly.  When  some  minor  corpora- 
t:on,  or  one  class  of  the  people  have  the  exclusive  privilege 
of  manufacturing  some  particular  articles,  and  all  the  rest 
are  prohibited,  the  danger  of  monopoly  may  be  urged.  But 
this  monopoly  injures  only  the  nation  that  allows  it.  The 
most  injurious  monopoly,  however,  is,  when  one  nation  com- 
mands the  industry  and  employment  which  another  ought  to 
possess.  A  nation  becomes  the  greatest  and  the  most  dan- 
gerous monopolist.  Italy  monopolized  the  silk  trade  of 
France,  England,  and  other  nations.  None  could  engage 
with  safety,  while  free  trade  was  allowed.  France  resisted 
the  protection  of  silks,  and  soon  excelled.  She  monopolized 
the  trade  of  England,  and  could  rival  Italy.  The  Flemings 
monopolized  the  woolen  trade  of  England  and  France.  They 
could  crush  any  new  beginnings  in  those  nations,  who  could 
not  prevent  it  but  by  protection.  The  Dutch  had  a  monopoly 
of  the  navigation  of  England  ;  and  had  not  protection  been 
afforded,  they  might  have  had  it  at  the  present  day.  India 
had  the  monopoly  of  cottons  in  the  United  States.  Had  not 
the  Government  interposed,  we  might  have  been  now  sup- 
plied from  that  portion  of  the  world.  Our  Government  gave 
protection  ;  and  \ve  now  meet  every  nation  in  a  common 
market,  and  send  cottons  to  Smyrna  and  the  East  Indies. 
Our  navigation  was  protected,  or  England  might  have  kepi 
it  in  perpetual  subjection.  But  when  a  trade  is  open  to  all 
the  people  of  a  nation,  no  monopoly  exists  at  home.  When 


1827.]  DEBATE  ON  WOOLENS  BILL.  179 

we  gave  protection  to  the  cotton  manufacture,  we  created 
no  monopoly.  Domestic  competition  reduced  the  price  of  the 
fabric  to  the  lowest  reasonable  profit.  No  one  now  com- 
plains of  a  monopoly.  Security  to  the  home  market  ever 
produces  the  same  results. 

Mr.  M.  said,  as  far  as  the  bill  went,  it  would  tend  to  give 
stability  to  the  manufacture,  prevent,  in  a  good  degree,  the 
frauds  now  practiced,  and  give  solid  protection.  As  it  re- 
garded the  additional  duty  on  wool,  he  observed  that  it 
might  be  considered  as  in  violation  of  the  maxim  that  a  raw 
material  ought  not  to  be  taxed  by  a  manufacturing  nation. 
England,  it  was  true,  had  reduced  the  duty  of  six  pence  ster- 
ling per  pound  to  one  penny.  But  with  the  former  duty  she 
imported  wool  to  a  great  extent.  She  can  not  produce  the 
quantity  nor  the  quality  of  wool  demanded  by  her  manufac- 
turers. The  United  States  can  supply  the  raw  material  to 
any  extent.  The  best  wool  can  be  raised.  The  safety  of  the 
manufacturer  requires  that  the  raw  material  should  be  pro- 
duced at  home.  In  case  of  hostile  policy  or  of  war/  his 
dependence  on  a  foreign  supply  would  be  his  ruin.  To  pro- 
duce it  at  home,  as  has  been  before  remarked,  is  so  much 
addition  to  the  value  of  the  farming  interest,  and  no  detri- 
ment to  any  other.  The  supply  can  and  will  be  furnished. 
By  adding  to  the  duty,  the  farmer  will  have  confidence  in  the 
market,  will  fear  no  hostile  attempts  from  abroad,  and  will 
rapidly  add  to  his  flocks.  It  depends  upon  the  wisdom  of 
Congress  to  decide  whether  the  interests  of  the  farmer  and 
manufacturer,  shall  be  protected,  or  left  to  unavoidable  de- 
struction. 

Mr.  Cambreleng,  of  New  York,  moved  that  the  Committee 
rise.  When  the  proper  time  arrived  for  vindicating  the  prin- 
ciples of  free  trade,  he  would  prove  that  they  were  of  Ameri- 
can, not  of  British  origin  ;  that  they  were  best  suited  to  our 
condition  and  institutions  ;  and  that  we  treated  British  prin- 
ciples as  we  did  British  manufactures  :  we  adopted  them 
when  it  was  for  our  interest  to  do  so,  and  rejected  them  when 
it  was  not.  The  object  of  his  motion  was,  not  to  address  the 
Committee  to-morrow  ;  but  that,  when  the  motion  should  be 
again  made  to  go  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  bill, 
the  House  should  refuse  for  two  or  three  weeks,  until  gentle- 
men could  inform  themselves  as  to  the  true  character  of  the 
bill.  The  gentleman  from  Vermont  had  given  much  valuable 
information  ;  but  not  that  which  was  most  wanted  :  he  had 
not  told  us  how  much  it  was  proposed  to  increase  the  duty 


180  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VIII. 

on  woolen  manufactures.  Mr.  C.,  alluding-  to  the  provision 
that  woolens  of  over  40  cents  and  under  $2  50,  value  in  the 
foreign  country,  should  be  deemed  to  have  cost  $2  50.  The 
effect  of  it  would  be  to  multiply  the  duty  every  time  the  value 
was  multiplied.  An  article  of  the  value  of  41  cents  being 
valued  at  $2  50,  would  pay  six  times  the  duty  of  33J  per 
cent,  ad  valorem.  Under  this  provision,  almost  the  entire 
mass  of  woolen  manufactures  wrould  be  prohibited.  It  would 
not  touch  cloth  of  a  fine  quality  ;  but  it  would  touch  that 
large  amount  which  was  consumed  by  the  laborers,  the 
mechanics,  the  farmers,  the  mariners — the  great  mass  of  the 
people  in  every  section  of  the  country.  It  was  not  a  time  to 
tamper  with  our  tariff  when  the  revenue  was  declining.  The 
whole  question  of  the  tariff  would  be  revived.  It  was  not  to 
be  expected  that  we  should  be  called  upon  to  pass  this  pro- 
hibitory act  for  the  benefit  of  the  woolen  manufacturers  of 
New  England,  without  calling  forth  other  applications, 
equally  well-founded,  from  other  branches  of  industry  and 
other  quarters  of  the  country.  The  woolen  manufacture  is 
in  the  same  condition  that  we  find,  and  shall  always  find, 
every  other  branch  of  industry,  after  a  reaction  in  trade.  The 
motion  prevailed,  and  the  Committee  rose  accordingly.  The 
next  day, 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pa.,  rose  to  make  a  motion.  It  was  now 
little  more  than  six  weeks  before  the  close  of  the  session,  and 
there  was  no  prospect  of  doing  anything  efficient  upon  the 
subject.  His  opinions  upon  the  subject  of  the  tariff  had  under- 
gone no  change.  He  was  as  decidedly  friendly  as  he  ever 
had  been  to  the  policy  of  sustaining  domestic  industry  by 
protecting  duties.  When  the  proper  time  should  arrive,  he 
would  manifest  this  friendship  in  a  proper  manner.  He  moved 
to  discharge  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  from  the  further  con- 
sideration of  the  bill. 

This  motion  was  debated  for  several  days,  when  the  motion 
was  negatived  :  Yeas,  76  ;  nays,  112.  Those  who  spoke  in 
favor  of  the  motion,  were  Messrs.  Buchanan,  Cambreleng, 
of  X.  Y.,  Archer  and  Stevenson,  of  Va.,  Hamilton,  of  S.  C., 
Livingston,  of  La.,  and  Haile,  of  Mississippi.  Those  who 
spoke  in  opposition,  were  Messrs.  Burges,  of  I'.  I.,  Mallary,  of 
Vt.,  Bartlett,  of  X.  II.,  D wight  and  Davis,  of  Mass.,  Steven- 
son, of  Pa.,  and  M'Lune,  of  Del.  Of  the  former,  Mr.  Buchanan 
alone,  it  is  believed,  was  considered  a  proper  protectionist. 
Of  the  latter,  Messrs.  Stevenson  and  M'Lane  were  protection- 
ists, but  were  opposed  to  some  of  the  provisions  of  the  bill, 
and  wished  it  altered  by  the  Committee. 


1827.1  DEBATE  OX  WOOLEKS  BILL.  18] 

Among  the  reasons  urged  against  the  bill  itself,  one  was, 
that  it  went  farther  than  was  necessary  for  protection. 

Mr.  Buchanan  defended  himself  against  the  charge  of  in- 
consistency in  having  supported  the  tariff  of  1824.  and  now 
opposing  this  bill.  The  former  was  a  tariff  of  protection,  not 
of  prohibition.  The  present  bill,  if  passed,  would  prohibit 
nearly  all  the  woolen  goods  in  common  use,  whose  value 
should  not  exceed  $3  50  a  yard  ;  embracing  those  worn  by 
the  poor  and  middle  classes.  He  was  in  favor  of  a  measure 
which  would  prevent  frauds,  and  give  a  fair  effect  to  the 
tariff' of  1824.  If  the  bill  had  proposed  a  moderate  minimum, 
and  a  small  addition  to  the  ad  valorem  duty,  it  would  have  re- 
ceived his  support. 

Mr.  Hamilton  said,  the  object  of  the  bill  was  to  transfer 
the  wool  from  the  backs  of  Northern  sheep  to  the  backs  of 
the  poor  men  of  this  country.  The  tariff  of  1824  was  a  mam- 
moth, but  this  was  a  wolf  in  sheep's  clothing.  He  protested 
against  its  injustice. 

Mr.  Burges  said  the  true  and  only  object  of  the  bill  was  to 
give  to  the  manufacturers  of  woolen  goods  the  protection  in- 
tended for  them  by  the  act  of  1824.  They  had  presented  the 
subject  in  various  memorials  ;  and  must  they  wait  for  a  re- 
dress of  their  grievances  a  whole  year,  because  certain  gen- 
tlemen, not  authorized  by  their  constituents  to  do  so,  had 
suggested  that  other  branches  of  manufacture  were  suffering 
in  the  same  manner  ? 

Mr.  Stevenson,  of  Ya.,  did  not  wish  to  have  again  the 
scenes  which  distracted  the  house  in  1824,  when  after  eight 
weeks7  discussion,  a  bill  passed  that  body  by  only  a  few 
votes.  They  had  not  time,  nor  were  they  prepared  for  such 
a  state  of  things  at  the  present  session. 

Mr.  Stevenson,  of  Pa.,  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Man- 
ufactures, said  he  had  agreed  with  the  majority  of  that  Com- 
mittee as  to  the  principle  of  the  bill  ;  but  he  thought  the 
minimum  prices  upon  which  the  duties  were  to  be  charged, 
were  too  high.  It  tended  to  produce  an  impression  unfavor- 
able to  the  general  purpose  of  the  bill,  and  thus  to  defeat  the 
whole  design.  In  Committee  of  the  Whole,  facts  might  be 
elicited  which  would  lead  to  the  preservation  of  the  minimum 
principle,  and  an  equitable  adjustment  of  its  rate,  so  as  to 
save  the  manufacturers,  without  violating  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  just  legislation. 

Mr.  M'Lane  opposed  the  motion  to  discharge  the  Committee. 
He  was,  and  ever  had  been,  an  advocate  for  the  tariff  sya- 


182  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VIIL 

tern  ;  but  he  was  not  prepared  to  say  that  he  was  prepared 
to  vote  for  this  bill  in  its  present  shape  ;  though  he  was  pre- 
pared to  cooperate  in  modifying-  and  improving  it.  Its  con- 
sideration, at  this  time,  was  resisted  on  two  grounds  :  First, 
that  it  will  produce  excitement,  by  striking  at  the  vital  in- 
terests of  the  country ;  and  secondly,  that  it  does  not  embrace 
a  sufficient  number  of  objects.  He  deprecated  excitement  ; 
but  if  it  is  to  be  produced  by  the  discussion  of  this  bill,  it 
must  be  because  it  is  inseparable  from  the  subject  itself,  and 
will  arise  whenever  the  subject  is  brought  up.  But  why  is 
excitement  produced  at  all  ?  It  arises  from  a  mistaken 
opinion  that  the  interests  of  the  different  parts  of  the  great 
national  community  are  distinct  from  and  opposed  to  each 
other.  I  do  not  believe  this  ;  and  therefore  I  am  in  favor  of 
the  policy  ;  but  SQ  long  as  an  opposite  opinion  is  held,  the 
seeds  of  excitement  will  be  here.  The  same  causes  of  it  will 
exist  at  the  next  session  that  exist  now.  As  to  the  other  ob- 
jection, that  the  bill  comprehends  but  one  object,  to  be  pro- 
tected, I  am  in  favor  of  its  consideration  now  for  this  very 
reason.  It  has  been  usual  to  include  many  different  objects 
in  the  same  bill,  in  order  to  carry  some  one  prominent  object 
of  policy  through  the  House.  I  disapprove  of  legislating  by 
compromise.  Either  a  particular  branch  of  industry  requires 
protection,  or  it  does  not.  If  it  does  not,  nothing  should  in- 
duce the  House  to  protect  it ;  but  if  it  does,  let  it  be  fairly 
presented  to  the  House,  and  receive  that  degree  of  protection 
which  it  merits. 

Mr.  Livingston  said,  if  the  proposition  was  to  repeal  a  pro- 
tecting law,  he  should  be  against  it,  though  he  had  opposed 
the  law.  The  frauds  complained  of  must  be  prevented  ;  but 
this  bill  goes  much  further.  Instead  of  securing  the  duty 
already  laid,  it  adds  a  new  one,  amounting  to  an  actual  pro- 
hibition of  nearly  one-half  of  all  the  woolen  goods  imported. 

Mr.  Mallary  answered  repeated  calls  that  had  been  made 
for  more  detailed  information  in  relation  to  the  bill.  He  said, 
we  have  been  told  that  the  bill  would  destroy  our  woolen 
trade.  I  will  first  suppose  that  it  will  prohibit  all  the  goods 
to  which  it  refers.  The  whole  imports  in  1826,  after  making 
an  average  allowance  for  reexportation,  was  $8,000,000.  The 
class  of  goods  to  which  the  bill  refers,  it  neither  prohibits, 
nor  can  prohibit — that  is,  cloths,  cassimeres,  flannels  and 
baizes  :  and  goods  of  that  general  character  amount  to  $5,- 
132,000.  About  $3,000,000  can  not  be  affected  at  all.  De- 
ducting also  750,000,  which  is  about  the  amount  of  goods 


1327.]  DEBATE  ON  WOOLENS  BILL.  183 

above  the  highest  minimum  of  $4,  and  is  not  reached,  and 
there  would  be  left  $4,382,000  of  the  class  of  goods  to  which 
the  bill  has  relation.  Mr.  M.  presented  an  estimate  of  the 
several  portions  of  this  amount  that  would  fall  under  the  sev- 
eral grades  of  value,  between  $4  and  $2  50  ;  between  $2  50 
and  $2  ;  between  $2  and  $1  50  ;  between  $1  50  and  $1  ;  and 
those  under  $1,  also  baizes  and  flannels  above  and  under  40 
cents.  He  estimated  that  only  a  little  over  $1,500,000  in  the 
aggregate  of  the  amount  of  importations,  might  be  excluded 
or  prohibited  by  the  bill.  But  this  was  only  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  foreign  fabrics  would  be  offered  to  our  markets  in 
the  same  relative  proportions,  as  to  prices,  that  they  now  are. 
In  the  practical  operation,  however,  the  amount  will  probably 
be  found  much  less.  The  foreign  manufacturer,  when  he  sees 
that  sufficient  protection  is  afforded  to  any  portion  which  he 
now  sends,  will  give  us  fabrics  at  or  near  some  one  of  the 
minimum  prices,  at  which  there  is  little  or  no  advance  of  duty. 
The  effect  of  this  may  be  to  prevent  the  American  manufac- 
turer from  supplying  that  particular  fabric,  and  will  have  some 
influence  on  such  qualities  as  the  latter  produces.  Hence  it 
is  evident  that  the  amount  of  foreign  cloths  to  be  driven  out 
of  our  market  will  be  less  than  has  been  stated. 

Another  inquiry'  has  been  often  made  :  Can  Americans 
supply  the  deficiency  that  may  be  produced  by  the  bill  ?  Mr. 
M.  said  he  had  on  a  former  occasion  endeavored  to  show  the 
amount  of  capital  employed,  the  quantity  of  raw  material 
used,  the  vast  number  of  factories  wholly  or  partly  suspend- 
ed. Capital  in  the  manufacture  was  not  less  than  $40,000,- 
000  ;  the  fabrics  not  less  than  25  or  $30,000,000.  The  arti- 
cles that  would  be  most  affected  by  the  bill,  were  such  as  can 
be  most  readily  produced  in  this  country.  The  proposed 
measure  would  set  machinery  in  motion  ;  new  capital  would 
bo  invested  ;  and  the  market  would  be  instantly  supplied. 

Another  important  inquiry  was,  what  will  be  the  effect  of 
the  bill  upon  the  revenue  ?  This,  said  Mr.  M.,  must,  of  ne- 
cessity, be  a  matter  of  opinion — judgment.  From  its  nature, 
it  could  not  be  a  subject  of  demonstration.  Our  revenue  de- 
pends principally  upon  duties  on  imports.  When  all  branches 
of  trade  flourish,  the  revenue  is  increased  ;  when  they  decline 
the  revenue  is  diminished.  If  tea  rises  in  China,  less  is  im- 
ported. If  sugar  is  scarce,  we  import  less.  If  spirits  are 
cheap,  we  import  more.  If  domestic  productions  have  a  good 
market  abroad,  consumption  of  foreign  goods  is  augmented. 
Hence,  we  see  our  ablest  financiers  are  constantly  disap- 
pointed in  their  calculations. 


184  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VIII. 

But,  said  Mr.  M.,  there  are  some  rules  on  this  subject  which 
will  not  deceive  us.  A  poor,  miserable,  impoverished  coun- 
try can  not  purchase  of  a  foreign  nation  articles  of  conve- 
nience or  luxury.  The  capacity  to  purc/iase  will  always  be  th*. 
measure  of  revenue.  If  it  can  not  buy  of  other  nations,  it  can  not 
have  revenue  from  imports.  Whatever,  therefore,  diminishes 
that  capacity  to  purchase,  must  diminish  the  revenue.  If 
any  class  of  people  are  bankrupt,  ruined,  they  will  only 
buy  the  very  necessaries  of  life.  Admit  that  the  measure 
will  reduce  the  importations  one  million  and  a  half — that  it 
will  reduce  the  revenue  $450,000.  The  loss  of  this  would  be 
well  repaid  by  the  salvation  of  the  immense  interest  now  de- 
pending. The  danger  of  reducing  our  importations  a  million 
and  a  half  ought  to  alarm  no  one.  The  ordinary  fluctuations  of 
the  woolen  trade  have  been  much  greater  than  the  opponents 
of  the  bill  have  supposed  would  be  produced  by  its  operations. 
We  imported  woolen  goods  for  consumption  :  In  1822,  to  the 
value  of  $11,552,000  ;  in  1828,  $7,492,000  ;  in  1824,  $7,530,- 
000  ;  in  1825,  $10,216,000  ;  in  1826,  $8,000,000.  Here  is 
seen  a  great  fluctuation.  Revenue,  also,  must  fluctuate.  Yet 
no  frightful  consequences  have  followed. 

The  revenue  derived  from  customs  in  1824,  the  year  in 
which  the  last  tariff  was  enacted,  was  $17,878,000,  more  than 
a  million  less  than  in  1823.  In  1825,  it  was  $20,098,000  ;  in 
1826,  $23,273,000.  By  the  tariff  of  1824,  business  was  re- 
vived ;  and  active  employment  was  given  to  capital  and 
labor.  This  increased  the  ability  of  the  people  to  purchase  ; 
and  hence  the  increase  of  revenue.  Though  some  foreign  ar- 
ticles should  be  excluded,  the  increased  domestic  production 
would  enable  the  people  to  purchase  other  articles  of  greater 
amount. 

Mr.  M.  then  showed,  from  the  Treasury  statements,  the 
steady  increase  of  imports  of  silks,  teas,  coffee,  sugar,  and 
molasses,  the  aggregate  value  of  which  was,  in  1821,  $15,- 
581,000  ;  in  1822,  $21,984,000  ;  in  1823,  $22,062,000  ;  in 
1824,  $23,242,000  ;  in  1825,$25,957,000.  Silks  from  $4,487,- 
000  in  1821,  increased  to  $10,200,000  in  1825,  and  $8,278,000 
in  1826.  Teas  imported  in  1821,  were  4,976,000  Ibs.;  in 
1826,  10,098,000  Ibs.  Sugars  in  1821,  59,512,000  Ibs.;  in 
1826,  84,872,000  Ibs.— an  article,  too,  protected  by  a  liberal 
duty  of  3  cents  per  lb.,  equal  to  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  From 
Orleans  al-.-nc,  40,000  hogsheads,  amounting  to  40,000,- 
000  Ibs.  of  Louisiana  sugar  have  been  exported,  and  of  course 
consumed  in  the  United  States.  It  is  estimated  that  next 


1927.]  DEB  ATE  ON  WOOLENS  BILL.  185 

year  50,000,000  Ibs.  will  be  produced  in  that  State.  Let  it 
be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  duty  is  the  cause  of  the  increased 
production. 

Another  fact  in  illustration  of  the  position  I  have  taken, 
said  Mr.  M.,  that  domestic  manufactures  promote  the  reve- 
nue, is  from  the  enterprising,  meritorious  proprietors  of  the 
Steubenvillc  manufactory  in  Ohio.  They  sell  annually  from 
$25,000  to  $30,000  worth  of  foreign  productions  ;  the  duties 
on  which  are  from  $8,000  to  $10,000.  It  is  a  part  of  the  rev- 
enue of  the  nation.  Payment  is  made  to  them  in  the  pro- 
duce of  the  surrounding  country,  demanded  by  those  whom 
they  employ,  and  in  wool  received  from  the  farmers.  They 
have  paid  cash  for  that  important  article,  but  they  can  do  so 
no  longer.  They  have  made  remittances  in  wool  and  cloth 
to  meet  the  demands  against  them  at  the  sea  boards.  Not  a 
dollar  in  money  lias  been  sent  by  them  out  of  Ohio  ;  but  they 
have  been  able  to  carry  back  large  sums  which  have  been 
distributed  around  their  establishments.  Blot  out  their  em- 
ployment ;  cut  off  the  aid  it  gives  to  the  wool-grower  and  all 
who  depend  on  them  for  a  market — the  effect  is  clear.  For- 
eign articles  from  which  the  revenue  is  derived,  can  no  long- 
er be  purchased.  Revenue  stops.  Apply  this  to  the  whole 
country.  Scatter  $40,000,000  of  capital  belonging  to  the 
manufacturers.  Paralyze  $40,000,000  more  belonging  to  the 
farmers.  No  man  can  doubt  that  the  revenues  of  the  country 
must  rapidly  decrease  under  the  depression  of  these  great 
and  vital  interests. 

The  question  being  put  on  Mr.  Buchanan's  motion  to  dis- 
charge the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  it  was,  as  before  stated, 
decided  in  the  negative  :  Yeas,  76  ;  nays,  112. 

Mr.  Barney,  of  Md.,  proposed  an  amendment  to  reduce 
the  minimum  valuation  of  $2  50  to  $1  50,  intending,  if  it 
should  be  adopted,  to  move  a  gradual  scale  of  minimum 
prices  to  be  substituted  for  those  in  the  bill.  A  long  debate 
followed,  in  which  the  principle  of  protection,  and  the  merits 
of  the  bill,  as  well  as  of  the  proposed  amendment,  were  dis- 
cussed. 

Mr.  Barney  said,  the  scale  of  minimums  was  not  sufficiently 
graduated  ;  their  '*  strides  were  too  gigantic."  Between  the 
first  and  second  class,  $1,100.000  would  be  embraced,  and  the 
duty  exceed  200  per  cent.  This  was  not  protection,  but  pro- 
hibition. He  was  in  favor  of  the  former,  but  not  of  the  latter. 
The  trade  had  passed  in  a  great  degree  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  American  merchant,  and  was  now  monopolized  by  the 


186  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VIII. 

British  manufacturer  and  his  agent  in  this  country.  Every 
species  of  fraud  was  resorted  to,  to  diminish  the  duties.  The 
appraisers  were  the  only  guards  against  frauds,  and  their 
labors  were  complicated  and  arduous.  Their  task  could  be 
performed  with  more  accuracy  if  a  graduated  scale  were 
established,  fixing  four  or  five  classes  from  40  cents  to  $4, 
than  when  there  are  as  many  grades  as  dollars  and  cents. 

When  we  look,  said  Mr.  B,  at  the  amount  involved  in  the 
discussion  of  the  bill,  it  can  not  be  esteemed  an  object 
unworthy  the  consideration  of  this  House.  In  a  population 
of  ten  millions,  while  many  consume  the  value  of  $100  annu- 
ally, the  woolen  clothing  and  blanket  of  the  Southern  negro 
cost  $4  to  $5,  and  a  moderate  average  of  $10  to  each  indi- 
vidual, would  swell  the  annual  consumption  to  $100,000,000  ; 
'  and  it  is  truly  gratifying  to  reflect  that  we  only  require  an 
importation  of  $6,000,000  under  the  present  disadvantages  of 
which  the  manufacturers  complain  so  loudly.  Is  it  not  rea- 
sonable then  to  anticipate,  that,  if  they  are  secured  in  a  fair 
competition,  by  a  faithful  and  rigid  exaction  of  the  existing 
duties,  they  will  not  only  supply  the  home  demand,  but,  in  a 
few  years,  rival  the  foreign  fabrics  in  all  the  markets  of  the 
world  ?  But  to  insure  them  this  protection,  it  is,  in  my  judg- 
ment, necessary  that  they  do  not  grasp  at  too  much,  but 
accept  such  modifications  of  the  bill  now  before  the  House, 
as  will  deprive  it  of  its  objectionable  features,  and  entitle  it 
to  support.  In  its  present  form,  it. can  not  receive  my 
sanction. 

Mr.  Mallary  said  the  change  proposed  would,  in  a  great 
measure,  defeat  the  object  aimed  at  by  the  Committee  who 
reported  the  bill.  As  modified  by  the  gentleman  from  Mary- 
land, the  bill  would  not  exclude  the  $1,100,000  imported,  be- 
cause a  great  part  of  those  goods  came  within  the  range  of 
$2  ;  and  the  amount  excluded  would  not  be  an  equivalent 
for  the  evasion  of  duty  on  those  admitted.  But  if  the  second 
minimum  were  fixed  at  $2  50,  it  would  exclude  a  large 
amount  of  goods  at  $2.  The  million  and  a  half's  worth  which 
he  had  before  said  would  be  affected  by  the  bill  would  not  all 
be  excluded  ;  because  the  manufacturers  abroad  would  so 
change  the  quality  and  value  of  their  fabrics  as  nearly  to 
suit  the  several  minimum  prices  established.  A  gradual 
scale  of  prices,  having  smaller  intervals  than  those  proposed 
by  the  bill,  would  rather  aid  tiie  foreign  competitor  than  drive 
him  from  the  market.  For  all  the  goods  would  continue  to 
be  imported  which  now  are  ;  but  would  be  crowded  below  the 


1827.J  DEBATE  ON  WOOLENS  BILL.  187 

different  prices,  and  the  evasions  would  be  easier  than 
ever. 

Mr  Ingham,  of  Pa.,  opposed  the  bill  for  the  following- 
reasons  among  others.  Its  tendency,  said  Mr.  I.,  is  to  corrupt 
the  whole  mercantile  community  ;  and  how  ?  Woolen  goods 
"which  cost  40  cents  the  square  yard  pay  13J  cents  per  yard  ; 
but  if  the  cost  be  41  cents,  the  duty  will  be  83  cents.  Now 
will  any  importer  allow  his  agent  in  Europe  to  invoice  a  par- 
cel of  woolen  goods  at  4 1  cents,  when  he  would  have  to  pay 
10  cents  a  yard  more  duty  than  if  the  goods  were  invoiced  at 
40  cents  ?  Consider  the  temptation.  On  an  importation  of 
10,000  yards,  the  difference  of  70  cents  a  yard  makes  $7, 
000  clear  gain.  Is  there  any  virtue  strong  enough  to  resist 
such  a  temptation  ?  If  there  be,  he  who  possesses  it  will  be 
driven  out  of  the  trade,  and  give  place  to  those  whom  your 
laws  will  have  corrupted. 

Mr.  I.  spoke  of  the  difference  between  the  woolen  and  the 
cotton  manufacturers.  Our  markets,  he  said,  are  glutted 
with  foreign  goods,  which  are  sold  at  so  low  a  rate  that  our 
woolen  manufacturers  can  not  compete  with  them.  Why 
does  this  injure  the  woolen  manufacturer  more  than  the  cot- 
ton ?  The  reason  is  obvious  :  The  raw  material,  cotton, 
has  fallen  in  the  same  proportion  as  the  manufactured 
goods.  Not  so  in  relation  to  wool.  We  imposed  a  high 
duty  on  imported  wool  in  1824,  to  keep  up  the  price  at 
home  ;  and  the  manufacturer  who  pays  this  duty,  can  not 
compete  with  the  European  manufacturer,  who  geta  his  wool 
free  of  duty,  or  nearly  so.  While  we  were  endeavoring 
to  keep  up  the  price  of  our  wool,  we  destroyed  our  market, 
Those  only  who  could  bring  it  into  market,  viz. :  the  manu- 
facturers, were  broken  down  by  the  competition  of  those  who 
could  make  cheaper  goods,  because  they  had  a  cheaper  raw 
material.  Our  woolen  manufacturers  provide  the  only  con- 
sumption of  our  wool ;  and  unless  they  are  prosperous,  we 
can  have  no  market.  The  wool  grower  must  rely  upon  his 
home  market  ;  and  his  interest  is  to  cherish  that  market  by 
every  means  in  his  power.  A  ready  sale  for  all  the  wool  he 
can  grow,  at  a  low  price,  is  better  for  him  than  a  higher  price 
with  a  very  limited  demand.  We  must  first  secure  the  mar- 
ket ;  then  take  our  chance,  in  a  competition  with  the  world, 
for  the  price. 

Mr.  Claiborne,  of  Va.,  said  he  had  heard  on  this  floor  much 
unsound  logic  on  the  subject  of  the  tariff.  His  views  of  the 
subject  had  brought  him  to  these  conclusions  :  1st.  All 


188  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VIII 

duties  on  imported  articles  are  a  direct,  downright,  and  posi 
tive  deduction  from  the  price  of  the  wheat,  the  tobacco,  01 
cotton,  exchanged  abroad  for  such  imported  article.  2dly 
All  duties  on  imported  articles  used  in  this  country,  fall 
directly  or  indirectly,  on  the  agricultural  interest,  the  founda 
tion  of  all  other  interests.  In  1824,  the  American  mind  wai 
nearly  equally  divided  on  the  policy  of  the  law  regulating 
the  duties  on  imports.  By  compromise,  it  has  been  said 
the  present  system  was  brought  about.  For  his  part,  In 
would  rather  recede  than  advance  a  single  peg.  He  founded 
his  opposition  to  protecting  duties  on  the  letter  of  the  Consti- 
tution. The  Constitution  gave  the  power  of  laying  duties  ; 
but  it  wisely  defined  the  purposes  for  which  we  were  author- 
ized so  to  do  •,  to  pay  the  debts,  provide  for  the  defense  of 
the  country,  and  promote  the  general  welfare.  He  had  heard 
the  words  "spirit  of  the  Constitution."  What  is  it  ?  and  where 
can  I  find  it  ?  Lucky  thought — 'tis  visionary,  undefined,  and 
unrestrained  discretion.  When  called  on  to  lay  duties  on 
articles  of  prime  necessity,  he  looked  at  the  people.  This 
•was  right.  If  debts  were  to  be  paid,  the  country  to  be  de- 
fended, the  general  welfare  advanced — not  the  interests  of 
the  manufacturers  to  the  detriment  of  the  agriculturists — he 
would  advance  to  the  hub,  and  boldly  lay  duties,  or  make  ap- 
propriations. But  when  gentlemen  went  on  to  protecting 
duties,  he  could  not  travel  with  them. 

Mr.  Davis,  of  Mass.,  in  reply  to  certain  remarks  of  Mr.  Ing- 
ham,  said  :  He  [Mr.  I.]  commenced  his  argument  by  an  eu- 
logium  on  the  policy  which  has  brought  the  manufacture  of  cot- 
ton to  its  present  prosperity.  This  he  imputed  tj  the  tariff  of 
1816,  which  levies  a  square  yard  duty.  But  the  gentleman 
remarked,  that  the  bill  under  consideration  involved  a  new 
principle,  because  it  contains  more  than  one  standard  by 
which  the  duty  is  to  be  assessed  on  the  square  yard.  This  1 
deny  :  for  the  principle  consists  in  fixing  the  standard.  It 
lies  in  establishing  by  law  the  price  of  goods  ;  and  it  can 
not  be  material  whether  there  be  one  or  more  standards  in  a 
bill  ;  the  principle  remains  the  same. 

But  the  gentleman  says  a  scale  of  minimums  opens  a  temp- 
tation to  fraud  and  perjury  which  no  virtue  can  resist.  That 
men  of  corrupt  morals  may  attempt,  by  their  invoices,  to 
crowd  goods  which,  in  values,  should  rise  a  little  above  a 
minimum,  or  below  it,  I  have  no  doubt,  because  they  would 
pay  less  duty.  But  as  you  advance  in  price  above  any  mini- 
mum, the  further  you  recede  from  it,  the  more  obvious  it  is 


1827.]  DEBATE  ON  WOOLENS  BILL.  189 

rendered  that  the  goods  can  not  be  invoiced  below  it,  until 
you  arrive  at  a  point  where  it  is  so  apparent  that  the  goods 
must  rise  above  the  minimum  value,  that  no  doubt  can  re- 
main about  it.  Here  fraud  and  knavery  must  cease  ;  and 
this  point  is  not  far  removed  from  the  minimum  :  so  that,  for 
the  most  part,  this  bill  would  keep  importers  honest.  Now 
how  is  it  with  the  law  as  it  now  stands  ?  Does  it  not  hold 
out  temptation  to  fraud  and  perjury  ?  Is  it  not  obvious  that, 
if  goods  are  set  at  less  than  their  value  in  the  invoice,  the 
owner  gains  one-third  part  of  every  dollar  he  depresses 
them  ?  Is  not  this  temptation  ?  and  ought  not  all  the  reve- 
nue laws  to  be  repealed  because  a  man  may  sin  under  them  ? 
The  law,  as  it  now  is,  affords,  through  all  its  operations,  a 
temptation  to  defraud  and  cheat  in  every  kind  of  goods. 
The  bill  before  us  has  at  least  this  recommendation,  that 
frauds  can  only  be  effected  in  goods  the  value  of  which  ap- 
prc  aches  near  to  the  square  yard  standard. 

Mr.  Barney  varied  his  motion  of  amendment  in  such  a  man- 
nei ,  as  to  insert  a  minimum  of  $1  50  between  the  two  mini- 
ran  ms  of  40  cents  and  $2  50. 

Mr.  Stewart,  of  Pa.,  supported  the  bill  from  its  supposed 
benefit  to  agriculture.  He  regretted  to  find  himself  in  oppo- 
sition to  two  of  his  most  distinguished  colleagues,  [Buch- 
anan and  Ingham,]  with  whom  he  had  cooperated  in  support 
of  the  tariff  of  1824  ;  which,  in  his  judgment,  was  not  more 
important  to  the  agricultural  interest  of  Pennsylvania,  than 
the:  bill  under  consideration.  This  bill  would  create  a  home 
market  for  our  farmers  which  no  changes  in  Europe  could 
affect,  arid  prevent  the  importation  of  foreign  agricultural 
.produce  to  the  neglect  of  our  own.  For,  said  he,  what  is 
tho  importation  of  cloth  but  the  importation  of  agricultural 
produce  ?  Is  not  cloth  the  product  of  agriculture  ?  Analyse 
it  -,  resolve  it  into  its  constituent  elements  ;  and  what  is  it  ? 
Wool  and  labor.  What  produces  the  wool  ?  Grass  and 
grain.  And  what  supports  labor  but  bread  and  meat  ? 
Cloth  is  composed  of  the  grass  and  grain  that  feed  the  sheep, 
and  the  bread  and  meat  that  support  the  laborer  who  con- 
verts the  wool  into  cloth.  And  is  it  policy  for  this  country, 
where  seven-eighths  of  the  population  are  agriculturists,  to 
import  annually  ten  millions  of  dollars'  worth  of  grass  and 
grain,  and  bread  and  meat,  converted  into  cloth? 

That  the  importation  of  cloth  is  the  importation  of  agricul- 
tural produce,  may  be  regarded  as  a  novel  doctrine  ;  and  to 
assert  that  thousands  of  tuns  of  grass  and  corn  are  annually 


190  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VIIL 

transported  from  Ohio  and  Kentucky  to  the  Atlantic  markets, 
would  be  considered  no  less  strange  ;  but  it  was  not  less 
true.  It  is  transported,  not  in  its  original  shape,  but  like 
cloth,  in  a  changed  and  modified  condition.  It  is  animated 
— converted  into  live  stock,  cattle  and  horses.  Each  of  these 
animals  carries  five  or  six  tuns  of  hay,  and  fifty  or  a  hundred 
bushels  of  corn  for  consumption  to  the  markets  of  the  East, 
which  it  is  the  policy  of  this  bill  to  sustain  and  increase. 
Hence,  it  is  a  bill  for  the  benefit  of  agriculture.  There  is  no 
foundation  for  the  objection  that  it  will  tax  the  farmer  and 
ruin  agriculture.  This  argument  has  been  urged  a  thousand 
times  against  this  policy.  It  was  urged  agahist  the  mini- 
mum of  25  cents  per  yard  imposed  by  the  tariff  of  1816,  upon 
cotton.  What  has  been  the  effect  of  that  minimum  upon 
cotton  ?  It  afforded  effectual  protection  in  that  case  as  it 
would  in  this.  It  has  established  the  manufacture  in  this 
country  ;  and  has  it  taxed  the  farmers  ?  No  ;  it  has  furn- 
ished the  country  a  better  fabric  for  one-half  the  sum  it  cost 
before.  Nor  is  this  all :  it  has  supplied  a  home  market  to 
the  Southern  planter  for  180,000  bales  of  cotton  annually, 
worth  $7,000,000.  This  market  is  not  only  permanent,  but 
increasing  ;  thus  verifying  every  anticipation  of  its  friends, 
and  affording  a  most  triumphant  refutation  of  every  objection 
urged  by  its  enemies.  It  has  furnished  facts  and  experience 
in  opposition  to  speculation  and  theory.  And  similar  effects 
will  result  from  a  similar  policy  in  regard  to  wool. 

Speaking  of  the  advantage  of  protection  to  manufactures 
in  creating  a  home  market,  Mr.  S.  said,  that  already  the  New 
England  States  had  imported,  in  a  single  year,  629,000  bar- 
rels of  flour  from  the  agricultural  States  for  consumption  in 
their  manufacturing  establishments,  while  all  Europe  had 
taken  less  than  57,000  barrels.  The  tendency  of  this  policy 
was  also,  not  to  create,  but  to  prevent  monopolies,  and  bene- 
fit the  farmer.  It  would  increase  the  number  of  woolen  es- 
tablishments and  the  quantity  of  the  manufactured  articles  ; 
and  this  increased  competition  would  reduce  the  price  of  the 
manufactured  fabrics,  while  the  increased  demand  for  the  raw 
material  and  bread  stuffs  would  as  certainly  enhance  the 
price  of  these  articles  of  agricultural  produce.  In  illustrat- 
ing this  argument,  Mr.  S.  referred  to  the  woolen  establish- 
ment at  Steubcnville,  Ohio,  [the  same  that  had  been  referred 
to  by  Mr.  Mallary  in  this  debate.]  It  consumed  annually 
$50,000  worth  of  agricultural  produce  of  the  surrounding 
country.  Now  if,  by  rejecting"  this  bill,  that  establishment 


1827.J  DEBATE  ON  WOOLENS  BILL.  191 

should  be  destroyed,  what  would  be  the  effect  on  the  farmers  ? 
It  would  not  only  destroy  this  market,  but  increase  the  quan- 
tity of  agricultural  products  by  converting  customers  into 
rivals — consumers  into  producers  of  agricultural  products. 
But  suppose  that,  by  passing  this  bill,  two  or  three  other  es- 
tablishments should  be  put  into  operation  in  that  place, 
which  he  stated  from  personal  knowledge  would  be  done  ; 
would  this  impose  a  tax  on  the  farmer  for  the  benefit  of  the 
manufacturer  ?  Would  this  create  monopolies  ?  Precisely 
the  reverse. 

Mr.  S.  also  controverted  the  idea  that  the  encouragement 
of  manufactures  was  injurious  to  commerce.  He  held  it  to 
be  a  sound  political  axiom,  that  the  prosperity  of  commerce 
would  always  be  in  proportion  to  the  prosperity  of  agricul- 
ture and  manufactures.  Commerce  was  properly  called  the 
handmaid  of  agriculture  and  manufactures.  Her  legitimate 
office  was  to  carry  arid  exchange  the  surplus  productions  of 
one  country  for  the  money  or  surplus  productions  of  another. 
Destroy  agriculture  and  manufactures,  and  commerce  would 
be  destroyed. 

Nor  would  this  measure  diminish  the  revenue.  If  less  cloth 
should  be  imported,  the  importation  of  other  articles  would 
be  increased.  The  best  plan  to  increase  the  revenue,  was  to 
increase  the  prosperity  of  the  country — to  increase  its  ability 
to  purchase  and  consume  foreign  productions  ;  as  was  the 
case  at  Steubenville,  where  there  were  annually  consumed, 
at  that  establishment,  imported  goods  to  the  value  of  $30,000, 
on  which  were  paid  duties  to  the  amount  of  $10,000. 

Mr.  Archer,  of  Va.,  said  there  were  two  laws  of  protective 
tariffs.  The  one,  that  every  tariff  of  this  kind,  after  produc- 
ing a  temporary  inflation  of  the  interest  it  favored,  occasioned 
its  distress.  The  other,  that  one  of  these  tariffs  generated 
another.  It  resulted  from  the  last  law,  that  the  dispute- 
winch  had  engaged  so  much  attention,  whether  any  of  the 
proposed  duties  would  be  prohibitory  or  not,  was  less  mate- 
rial than  had  been  supposed.  If  they  were  not  prohibitory 
now,  they  would  be  shortly.  Only  three  years  ago,  we  had 
given  the  present  protecting  duty,  then  thought  a  high  one, 
of  33 J  per  cent.  The  cry  was  louder  now  for  more  protec- 
tion than  then.  There  was  little  doubt  that  the  occasion  was 
more  pressing.  Grant  the  present  bill,  and  in  three  years 
more,  another  and  final  tariff  would  come  to  shut  the  gate, 
and  bar  the  narrow  admission  which  might  now  be  left  un- 
closed. 


192  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VIII 

Mr.  A.  admitted  that  the  markets  in  the  immediate  neigh- 
borhood of  the  manufactories  would  be  improved  by  their 
extension  ;  and  this  had  been  confounded  with  a  general  im- 
provement of  the  market  of  the  country,  which  would,  in  fact, 
suffer  from  the  reduction  in  the  whole  value  of  the  national 
exchanges,  to  the  amount  of  the  taxation  imposed  by  the 
bill. 

Several  amendments  had  been  proposed  in  the  course  of 
the  debate,  and  motions  made  to  recommit  ;  but  they  had 
generally  failed.  On  the  8th  of  February, 

Mr.  Michael  Hoffman,  of  N.  Y.,  moved  to  recommit  the  bill 
to  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  with  instructions  so  to 
amend  the  same  as  to  make  the  duty  on  wool  commence  at 
the  same  time  as  the  duty  on  woolens.  [By  the  bill,  the  duty 
on  wool  was  to  commence  a  year  later  than  that  on  the  man- 
ufactured goods.] 

Mr.  H.  said,  a  question  has  been  raised  in  the  course  of 
this  debate,  whether  Congress  can  impose  duties  merely  with 
a  view  to  protect  domestic  industry.  But  such  a  question 
ca\i  not  now  arise.  It  is  too  early.  We  have  an  immense 
debt  of  about  seventy  millions  ;  the  interest  must  be  paid  ; 
the  principal  must  be  reduced  ;  and  we  must  meet  the  cur- 
rei it  expenses  of  the  government.  To  do  this,  we  must,  for 
many  years,  levy,  in  some  way,  a  revenue  equal  to  about 
twenty  millions  of  dollars  a  year.  How  shall  we  levy  this 
sum  annually  ?  If  the  money  be  raised  by  direct  taxes,  or 
an  excise,  it  is  hard  to  meet  it  on  a  given  day,  when  every 
citizen  is  called  to  make  payment.  lu  truih,  the  currency  of 
the  country  would  be  insufficient  to  meet  it  at  once.  If  the 
tax  be  indirect,  it  is  easier  for  the  consumer.  The  merchant 
and  capitalist  first  advance  the  money,  and  as  we  pay  them 
for  the  advance,  we  do  not  feel  indebted  to  them  ;  lout  the 
consumer  pays  when  he  will,  to  whom  he  will,  how  he  will, 
and  as  much  as  he  pleases.  He  contracts  with  the  merchant 
ho\r,  when,  and  in  what,  he  is  to  pay,  and  therefore  makes  it 
eas/  and  practicable.  If  we  must  raise  20  millions  a  year, 
no  better  mode  can  be  devised  to  do  it  than  by  impost  and 
tuniiage  duties.  In  this  way  the  consumer  of  foreign  goods, 
charged  with  a  duty,  while  he  supplies  himself,  pays  the  Na- 
tional Debt,  and  contributes  to  the  support  of  the  Govern- 
ment. But  when  he  buys  of  the  American  manufacturer,  in- 
stead of  paying  part  to  him,  part  to  the  shipper,  and  a  large 
part  into  the  treasury,  towards  the  taxes,  he  pays  the  whole 
to  our  manufacturer  ;  that  is,  instead  of  paying  him  $100  he 


1827.]  DEBATE  ON  WOOLENS  BILL.  193 

pays  him  that,  and  the  ships'  charges  and  duties,  to  the 
amount,  in  all,  of  $120,  $130  or  even  $140.  This  great  ex- 
cess paid  to  our  own  manufacturer,  induces  him  to  sit  down 
by  the  side  of  the  American  farmer  and  planter.  By  pur- 
chasing- of  him,  we  lose  the  opportunity  of  paying  the  debt 
an. I  expenses  of  the  Government ;  but  our  citizens  acquire  a 
vast  advantage  from  the  establishment  of  manufactories 
among  us.  While  we  import  our  goods,  and  the  persons  who 
m:ike  them  reside  in  other  countries,  sometimes  from  the 
great  distance,  and  oftener  from  the  laws  and  policy  of  those 
countries,  our  citizens  can  not  supply  them  either  with  pro- 
visions or  the  raw  material.  Our  citizens  must  buy  of  them, 
but  can  not  sell  to  them.  But  if  the  manufacturer  will  plant 
himself  in  our  country,  our  citizens  will  supply  him,  not  only 
with  the  raw  material,  but  with  every  necessary  and  every 
luxury  of  life.  This  opens  to  our  people  a  new  and  neces- 
sary market  for  their  products  ;  and  it  is  desirable  that  our 
measures  should  be  such  as  should  cause  these  establish- 
ments to  grow  up  in  every  quarter  of  the  country. 

Believing  that  some  greater  encouragement  is  due  to  the 
manufacture  of  woolens,  I  have  been  not  only  favorably 
disposed  to,  but  in  favor  of  this  bill.  If  objections  have 
forced  themselves  upon  my  mind  from  its  crude  and  imper- 
fect state,  inclination  has  sought  out  reasons  to  obviate  such 
objections.  I  would  have  preferred  the  first  minimum,  and 
an  increase  of  the  present  ad  valorem  duty  to  about  40  per 
cent.  But  as  the  first  minimum  of  40  cents  will  so  far  pro- 
tect both  our  revenue  and  manufactures,  and  considering  it 
impossible  that  each  should  have  his  own  wishes  gratified,  I 
have  concluded  to  support  the  bill,  if  the  amendment  which 
my  motion  seeks  can  be  attained. 

The  tariff  of  1824  appears,  to  my  mind,  not  to  be  an  entire 
and  substantial  protection  to  our  manufacturers.  But  how- 
ever great  I  may  suppose  their  misfortunes,  those  of  the  wool- 
grower  must  be  greater.  The  reduction  of  the  priee  of  wool 
must  have  been  rather  an  advantage  to  the  manufacturer  ; 
bu';  to  the  wool-grower  it  has  been  loss  and  ruin.  By  the 
provisions  of  the  second  section  of  the  bill,  the  duties  on  im- 
ported woolen  goods  are  to  be  increased,  and  are  to  go  into 
of  oration  for  the  protection  of  the  manufacturer  on  the  first 
day  of  August,  1827.  I  wish  this  altered  to  an  earlier  day. 
If  it  is  not,  we  shall  have  an  immense  importation  of  wool- 
ens before  that  day.  But  there  is  to  be  no  increased  duty  on 
wool,  until  the  1st  of  June,  1828,  The  provisions  of  the  bill 

9 


194  THE   PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VIII. 

will  be  known  to  the  whole  world.  You  invite  the  wool- 
growers  of  Europe  to  send  their  wool  hither,  and  give  the^ 
more  than  a  whole  year  in  which  to  do  it.  The  imported 
wool  will  be  cheap,  and  will  reduce  as  well  that  which  will 
be  shorn  in  1829,  as  any  shorn  before.  If  you  increase  the 
duty,  your  act  should  go  into  effect  before  foreign  wool  can 
be  ordered  in,  to  anticipate  your  law  and  the  rise  of  the  arti- 
cle. 

The  gentleman  from  Vermont  [Mr.  Mallary,]  has  told  us 
that  the  Committee  feared  that,  if  the  duty  on  wool  should 
go  into  operation  as  soon  as  the  duty  on  woolens,  the  coun- 
try could  not  furnish  the  wool  necessary  for  our  manufactures  ; 
and  that  the  duty  on  wool  was  postponed  to  enable  our 
citizens  to  increase  their  flocks,  and  meet  the  demand.  I 
think  the  assertion,  that  we  are  not  now  able  to  produce  the 
requisite  quantity  of  wool,  is  unfounded  in  fact.  There  are 
vast  quantities  on  hand—double  or  triple  the  quantity  im- 
ported. It  is  not  imported  for  consumption,  but  to  reduce 
the  price.  Not  one-twentieth  of  the  quantity  used  by  our 
manufacturers  is  imported  ;  and  that  twentieth  can  be  sup- 
plied for  the  present  by  the  vast  quantities  on  hand,  and 
'hereafter  by  the  increase  of  our  flocks. 

Mr.  Stevenson,  of  Pa.,  one  of  the  Committee  on  Manufac- 
tures, though  a  protectionist,  opposed  the  bill.  He  said  :  It 
pours  wealth  into  the  lap  of  the  New  England  capitalist, 
while  its  tendency  'is  to  break  down  the  humbler  efforts  of 
our  Western  industry.  It  suffers  New  England  to  accomplish 
her  great  object,  while  she  concedes  nothing.  It  lures  the 
wool  grower  to  be  accessory  to  its  passage,  but  deceives  his 
expectation  by  failing  in  reciprocity.  The  Eastern  manufac- 
turers opposed  the  increase  of  duty  on  wool  ;  and  with  such 
effect,  that  the  majority  of  the  Committee  decided  against  the 
duty  ;  and  it  was  not  until  the  last  meeting,  when  the  Com- 
mittee were  admonished  to  be  wise,  that  they  inserted  the 
duty  on  wool.  The  wool-grower  is  won  by  a  fallacy.  The 
duty  on  woolens  goes  into  effect  on  the  1st  of  August,  1827. 
The  merchant  who  has  a  large  stock  on  hand,  is  to  feel  the 
immediate  benefits  of  a  rise.  The  manufacturer  is  to  feel  it 
in  August  next.  How  is  it  proposed  to  treat  the  wool-grower  ? 
On  the  1st  of  June,  1828,  he  is  to  have  the  benefit  of  an  in- 
crease of  5  per  cent,  on  all  wool  now  chargeable  with  a  duty 
of  30  per  cent.  ;  but  foreign  wool,  which  costs  at  its  place  of 
purchase  not  over  10  cents,  now  pays  only  15  per  cent,  duty  ; 
of  course  there  is  no  additional  duty  on  wool  of  this  class. 


1827.]  DEBATE  ON  WOOLENS  BILL.  195 

On  the  1st  of  June,  1829,  there  is  to  be  a  further  increase  of 
duty  of  5  per  cent,  on  wool  costing  over  10  cents.  Thus, 
then,  the  bill  proposes  ultimately  to  give  an  increase  of  10 
per  cent,  on  imported  wool  costing  upwards  of  10  cents  in 
the  foreign  market,  and  to  leave  all  under  that  at  a  duty  of 
15  per  cent.  only.  I  ask  that  the  duty  shall  go  into  opera- 
tion on  wool  and  woolens,  hand  in  hand  as  to  time  and 
rate.* 

Mr.  Wright,  of  Ohio,  believing  that  the  friends  of  the  bill 
should  take  measures  to  secure  an  immediate  vote  upon  it, 
moved  the  previous  question.  The  previous  question  was 
ordered  by  a  vote  of  105  to  95.  And  the  bill,  (Feb.  8,)  was 
ordered  to  a  third  reading,  108  to  99. 

On  the  10th,  the  bill  was  read  the  third  time  ;  and  the 
question  being  on  its  passage, 

Mr.  Cambreleng  took  the  floor,  and  addressed  the  House  at 
length  in  opposition  to  the  bill,  and  moved  its  postponement 
until  the  4th  of  March  next.  He  withdrew  the  motion,  how- 
ever, at  the  request  of 

Mr.  Buchanan,  who  moved  its  recommitment  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Manufactures,  with  instructions  to  make  the  duties 
on  wool  and  woolens  commence  at  the  same  time,  and  to  in- 
crease the  duties  on  spirits  and  hemp. 

Mr.  Lawrence,  of  Pa.,  opposed  this  motion  at  this  late  hour, 
and  briefly  defended  the  bill  against  the  objections  of  his  col- 
leagues ;  denying  that  it  was  exclusively  for  the  benefit  of 
the  manufacturer.  He  believed  it  would  equally  promote  the 
interests  of  the  farmer  and  the  manufacturer.  Their  inter- 
ests were  blended  ;  and  the  protection  to  the  one  was 
directly  or  indirectly  felt  by  the  other.  He  believed  Penn- 
sylvania would  be  benefited  by  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

The  debate  was  continued  by  members  from  Pennsylvania  ; 
Messrs.  Buchanan,  Wurtz,  and  Stevenson,  in  favor  of  the  re- 
commitment and  against  the  bill  ;  and  Messrs.  Miner,  Law- 
rence, and  Stewart,  against  the  recommitment  and  in  support 
of  the  bill. 

A  motion  by  Mr.  Cook,  of  Illinois,  to  lay  the  bill  on  the 
table  was  negatived  :  Yeas,  84  ;  nays,  108. 

*  The  friends  of  protection,  though  generally  agreed  upon  the  princi- 
ple, that  the  interest  of  both  the  producer  and  manufacturer  of  wool  re- 
quires that  the  latter  should  be  supplied  cheaply  with  the  raw  material, 
differed  materially  as  to  the  rate  of  duty  by  which  its  production  should 
be  encouraged.  That  the  duty  on  a  raw  material  should  not  exceed,  but 
should  generally  be  less  than  that  upon  the  manufactured  article,  scarcely 
admits  of  dispule. 


196  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  VIII 

Mr.  Ingharo,  of  Pa.,  closed  the  debate  in  a  speech  of  con- 
siderable length  in  opposition  to  the  bill. 

Mr.  Bartlett,  of  N.  id.,  after  an  unsuccessful  motion  of  Mr. 
Mitchell,  of  Ten.,  to  adjourn,  demanded  the  previous  question, 
which  was  sustained,  97  to  85.  The  main  question  was 
ordered,  102  to  98. 

Mr.  Cambreleng  moved  to  adjourn.     Negatived,  81  to  105. 

The  question  on  the  final  passage  was  then  taken,  and 
decided  •  in  the  affirmative  :  Yeas,  106  ;  nays,  95,  as  fol- 
lows : — 

Maine:  Yeas,  3;  nays,  4.  New  Hampshire:  Yeas,  6.  Massachusetts: 
Yeas.  12;  nay,  1.  Rhode  Island:  Yeas,  2.  Connecticut:  Yeas,  6.  Ver- 
mont: Yeas,  4.  New  York:  Yeas,  26;  nays,  C.  New  Jersey:  Yeas,  6. 
Pennsylvania:  Yeas,  18 ;  nays,  5.  Delaware:  nay,  1.  Maryland:  Yeas, 
2  ;  nays,  4.  Virginia :  Yea,  1 ;  nays,  19.  North  Carolina :  Kays,  13. 
South  Carolina :  Nays,  9.  Georgia :  •  • ,  5.  Kentucky :  Yeas,  4 ;  nays,  7. 
Tennessee :  Nays,  (J.  Ohio  :  Yeas,  13  ;  nay,  1.  Louisiana  :  Nays,  3.  Mis- 
sissippi :  Nay,  1.  Indiana:  Yea,  1 ;  nays,  2.  Illinois:  Nay,  1.  Alaba,- 
ma :  Nays,  3.  Missouri :  Yea,  1. 

In  the  Senate,  the  bill  was  taken  up  on  the  13th  of  Febru- 
ary, and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Manufactures.  On  the 
15th,  the  Committee  reported  the  bill  without  amendment. 
On  the  19th,  a  motion  was  made  to  refer  the  bill  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Finance  ;  and  after  considerable  debate,  in  which 
the  reference  was  advocated  by  the  opponents  of  the  bill,  the 
question  was  taken,  and  decided  in  the  negative  :  Yeas,  23  ; 
Days,  24.  Several  motions  to  recommit  the  bill  with  instruc- 
tions were  negatived.  On  the  28th,  but  three  days  before 
the  close  of  the  session,  the  bill  coming  up  in  its  course,  Mr. 
Hayne  said  it  was  obvious  that  it  could  net  be  acted  on  at 
this  session,  and  moved  to  lay  it  on  the  table  :  Yeas,  20  ; 
nays,  20.  By  the  casting  vote  of  Vice-President  Calhoun,  the 
question  was  decided  in  the  affirmative. 


1827.]  HARRISBURG  CONVENTION.  197 


CHAPTER    IX. 

Harrisburg  Convention  preceding  the  tariff  of  1828.  Congress  meets  in  December, 
1827.  Secretary  Rush's  report.  Bill  reported  by  Committee  on  Manufactures. 
Debate  on  the  bill ;  its  passage  in  the  House.  Debate  and  passage  in  the  Sen- 
ate. Debate  on  the  bill,  and  its  passage. 

DISAPPOINTED  in  their  expectations  by  the  defeat  of  the 
"  Woolens  Bill,"  the  manufacturers  early  resolved  on  a  re- 
newal of  their  application  to  Congress  for  relief.  At  a  meet- 
ing of  the  Pennsylvania  Society  for  the  promotion  of  Manu- 
factures and  the  Mechanic  Arts,  held  on  the  14th  of  May, 
1827,  Charles  J.  Ingersoll  presiding,  in  view  of  "  the  depress- 
ed state  of  the  woolen  manufacture  and  of  the  market  for 
wool,  together  with  its  injurious  effect  on  other  departments 
of  industry  and  on  the  general  welfare,"  resolutions  were 
adopted  culling  on  the  farmers  and  manufacturers,  and  the 
friends  of  both  branches  of  industry,  to  hold  conventions  in 
their  respective  States,  and  to  appoint  at  least  five  delegates 
from  each  State,  to  meet  in  general  convention  at  Harrisburg, 
on  the  30th  day  of  July,  to  deliberate  on  measures  to  be  taken 
in  the  present  posture  of  their  affairs,  and  appointing  a  com- 
mittee of  twenty-seven,  to  frame  an  address  to  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States. 

The  Committee,  in  their  address,  discussed  the  policy  of 
protection,  and  set  forth  the  causes  of  the  depression  of  the 
manufacturing  interest,  and  the  effect  of  this  depression  upon 
the  other  great  interests  of  the  country.  Above  eighty  per 
cent,  of  the  population  was  engaged  in  the  pursuits  of  agri- 
culture ;  and  for  the  large  surplus  of  the  produce  of  the  soil, 
there  was  no  market  at  home  or  abroad.  The  want  of  a 
market  operated  severely  upon  the  Middle  and  Western 
States.  Europe  no  longer  wanted  their  grain  and  flour,  and 
her  ports  were  closed  against  them,  while  these  States  con- 
sumed of  the  manufactures  of  Europe  to  the  amount  of  $10, 
000.000  to  $12,000,000  in  value  annually. 

To  show  the  effects  of  the  closing  of  the  European  ports 
against  our  breadstuff's,  the  amount  of  our  exports  of  bread- 
stuffs  during  the  year  1825,  were  compared  with  the  amount 
exported  while  our  wheat  and  flour  had  a  foreign  demand 


)98  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX. 

It  appeared  that,  while  our  population  had  nearly  trebled 
since  1796,  the  exports  of  all  the  articles  produced,  exclusive 
of  cotton  and  tobacco,  had  diminished  nearly  one-third.  The 
arguments  in  favor  of  the  desired  protection  and  of  the  gen- 
eral policy,  were  substantially  the  same  as  those  offered  in 
previous  discussions  of  this  subject. 

In  pursuance  of  the  call  of  the  "  Pennsylvania  Society  for 
the  Promotion  of  Manufactures,"  &c.,  State  Conventions  were 
held,  and  delegates  were  appointed  to  the  National  Conven- 
tion at  Harrisburg.  From  the  proceedings  of  these  State 
Conventions,  and  the  names  of  the  persons  who  composed 
them,  there  appears  to  have  been  greater  unanimity  at  that 
time  among  the  people  of  the  Northern  States  on  the  subject 
of  the  tariff  than  there  was  at  a  later  period. 

The  New  York  State  Convention  was  held  at  Albany. 
Jesse  Buel,  of  Albany,  was  the  President  of  the  Convention, 
and  Edmund  H.  Pendleton,  of  Dutchess,  and  David  E.  Evans, 
oi'  Genesee,  were  Secretaries.  The  Convention  was  addressed 
by  Col.  Samuel  Young,  of  Saratoga,  Gen.  Van  Rensselaer,  of 
Columbia,  and  other  gentlemen,  in  support  of  the  purposes 
for  which  it  had  been  called.  Among  the  delegates  appointed 
to  the  Harrisburg  Convention,  were  some  of  the  most  promi- 
nent citizens  of  the  State,  viz.  :  Eleazer  Lord,  Peter  Sharp, 
Gen.  James  Tallmadge,  Jacob  R.  Van  Rensselaer,  Samuel 
M.  Hopkins,  Samuel  Young,  John  B.  Yates,  Alvan  Stewart, 
Victory  Birdseye,  Enos  T.  Throop,  Francis  Granger,  Philip 
Church,  and  others,  together  with  the  officers  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

A  long  series  of  resolutions  was  adopted,  of  which  we  copy 
the  following  as  expressive  of  the  common  sentiments  of  the 
people,  at  that  time,  of  the  different  political  parties  in  the 
Northern  States  : 

"  Resolved,  That  agriculture,  manufactures,  and  commerce 
are  social  pursuits,  and  flourish  best  in  the  society  of  each 
other  ;  and  that  equal  protection  by  the  Government  is  due 
to  each. 

"  Resolved,  That,  as  wool  and  the  woolen  trade  were  the 
principal  foundation  of  the  prosperity,  first  of  the  Netherlands, 
and  afterwards  of  England  ;  so  the  people  of  the  Northern 
and  Middle  States  ought  to  look  to  the  same  article  as  an 
unfailing  source  of  "wealth  to  their  agricultural,  manufactur- 
ing, and  commercial  interests. 

"  Resdred,  That,  inasmuch  as  the  staple  agricultural  pro- 
ducts of  the  South,  to  wit,  cotton,  tobacco,  and  rice,  are  ad- 


1827.]  SECRETARY  RUSH'S  REPORT.  199 

mitted  into  the  ports  of  Europe  without  competition  in  their 
production  in  that  part  of  the  world  ;  and  while  both  com- 
petition and  prohibitory  laws  operate  to  exclude  from. 
European  markets  the  breadstuffs,  provisions,  and  manufac- 
tures of  the  Northern,  Middle,  and  Western  States,  we  deem, 
it  unkind  in  our  Southern  brethren  to  oppose  the  passage  of 
laws  which  are  calculated  to  create  a  home  market  for  our 
agricultural  productions,  and  to  promote  our  national  wealth 
and  prosperity." 

There  were  in  the  national  Convention  at  Harrisburg,  95 
delegates  from  the  following  States  :  New  Hampshire, 
Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  Vermont,  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Vir- 
ginia, Kentucky,  and  Ohio.  JOSEPH  RITNER,  of  Pennsylvania, 
was  chosen  President  ;  JESSE  BUEL,  of  New  York,  arid  FRISBY 
TILGIIMAN,  of  Maryland,  Vicc-Prcsidents  ;  WILLIAM  HALSTED, 
Jr.,  of  New  Jersey,  and  REDWOOD  FISHER,  of  Pennsylvania, 
Secretaries. 

Committees  upon  several  of  the  most  important  branches 
of  manufacture  were  appointed,  and  a  committee  to  draft  a 
memorial  to  Congress  :  also  a  committee  to  prepare  an  ad- 
dress to  the  people  of  the  United  States.  The  reports  of  the 
committees  form  a  large  volume,  embracing  a  great  amount 
and  variety  of  facts  and  statistics  that  were  not  only  in  them- 
selves interesting,  but  useful  to  the  political  economist  and 
the  statesman.  The  memorial  and  petition  to  Congress  con- 
tained the  project  of  a  tariff  of  duties  upon  raw  wool  and  the 
different  kinds  and  qualities  of  woolen  manufactures,  for  the 
consideration  of  Congress.  An  increase  of  duties  on  other 
articles  of  manufacture  was  also  recommended. 

Congress  assembled  on  Monday,  the  3d  day  of  December, 
1827.  The  Message  of  President  Adams  made  no  direct  allu- 
sion to  the  subject  of  the  tariff.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, Mr.  Rush,  however,  in  his  report,  discusses  the  subject 
somewhat  at  length,  and  expresses  the  belief,  that«tiie  rates 
of  the  tariff  of  1824  "  might  be  augmented  in  important  par- 
ticulars, without  affecting  injuriously  the  interests  of  foreign 
commerce  ;  and  that  a  true  national  policy  dictates  their 
augmentation."  Since  the  tariff  of  1824,  our  imports  and  ex- 
ports had  increased.  And  this  increase,  he  said,  "  becomes 
the  more  striking  from  the  consideration  that,  in  1826,  there 
was  witnessed,  in  Europe,  an  extraordinary  depression  of 
prices.  This  was  followed  by  a  proportionate  stagnation  in 
all  the  operations  of  purchase  and  sale.  The  evil  was  pro- 


200  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX 

ductivc,  in  that  hemisphere,  not  only  of  great  individual  buf- 
fering, but  of  anxiety  in  Governments.  It  was  at  such  a 
moment  that  we  began  to  reap  the  benefits  of  the  profita- 
ble turn  given  to  a  poition  of  the  industry  of  our  own  coun- 
try, by  the  provisions  of  the  tariff.  Had  it  not  been  for  tho 
demand  of  our  own  manufacturers  for  some  of  the  agricultural 
staples  of  the  country,  the  presumption  is  authorized,  that  the 
fall  of  prices  in  Europe,  at  that  period,  would  have  been  dif- 
ferently felt  by  our  agricultural  classes  here.  The  increased 
number  of  artisans  within  our  own  borders,  and  the  greater 
scope  of  their  operations,  left  the  agriculturist  less  dependent 
upon  foreign  markets  than  if  the  latter  had  been  his  sole  re- 
liance. 

t"  Nor  have  the  benefits  of  manufacturing  industry  ended 
here.  The  proof  strengthens,  that  many  articles  have  be- 
come cheaper,  more  abundant,  and  of  better  quality,  by  the 
effect  of  competition  among  the  home  artisans,  than  when  de- 
rived only  from  abroad.  The  opening  of  new  objects  of  labor, 
by  multiplying1  the  occupations  of  men,  has  also  increased 
the  public  prosperity.  This  has  produced  an  increased  ability 
to  buy  all  articles  of  consumption,  whencesoever  obtained. 
Hence,  foreign  trade  has  not  declined,  whilst  new  domestic 
resources  in  manufacturing  labor  have  been  unfolding  them- 
selves. As  the  latter  are  more  amply  brought  out,  it  is  con- 
fidently anticipated  that  the  former  will  become  wider  and 
more  enriching  in  its  range.  If  there  can  be  no  dissent  to 
the  maxim  as  between  independent  nations,  that  the  pros- 
perity of  one  promotes  that  of  another,  it  can  not  be  doubted 
that  different  parts  of  the  same  nation  will  derive  reciprocal 
prosperity  from  the  same  cause." 

The  Secretary  considered  manufactures  as  promoting  the 
riches,  the  security,  and  the  power  of  the  State.  "  The  effect 
upon  agricultural  prices  produced  by  the  perpetual  presence 
of  armies  in  a  country,  will  not  too  strongly  illustrate  the 
extent  ff  the  benefit  that  the  manufacturing  class  renders  to 
the  class  of  farmers.  The  parallel  ends,  indeed,  here,  and 
ends  berieficiently  ;  for  whilst  the  soldier  does  nothing  but 
consume,  the  manufacturer  produces,  as  well  as  consumes, 
supplying  the  farmer  with  articles  as  necessary  as  those 
which  he  receives  from  him. 

"Manufacturing  industry  advances  the  intellectual,  no  less 
thnn  the  physical  power  of  a  State,  by  the  various  knowledge 
which  its  complicated  pursuits  put  into  requisition.  It  is  the 
course  of  industry  which  must  lay  the  foundation  of  those 


1827.]  SECRETARY  RUSH'S  REPORT.  201 

arts  which  tend  to  refinement  in  a  nation,  for  which  intellect- 
ual nations,  and  none  more  than  republics,  have  acquired  re- 
nown. 

"The  time  has  passed  when  objections  might  be  made  to 
manufactures,  from  the  limited  amount  of  our  population, 
and  the  clearness  of  labor.  The  population,  throughout  large 
portions  of  the  Union,  is  now  sufficient,  both  in  amount  and 
density,  for  any  operations  of  manual  labor  ;  whilst  science, 
by  applying  its  inventions  to  this  kind  of  labor,  has  abridged 
its  expensiveness. 

"  As  little  has  the  objection  to  manufactures,  founded  upon 
moral  causes,  any  place.  That  they  lead  to  deterioration  in 
portions  of  the  people,  is  not  to  be  admitted.  Facts,  on  the 
contrary,  teach,  that  the  freest  and  most  enlightened,  as  well 
as  most  opulent  and  powerful  countries  of  Europe,  are  those 
in  which  manufacturers  bear  the  greatest  proportion  to  the 
other  productive  classes.  Their  success  begets  industry, 
which  is  favorable  to  good  habits.  It  begets  prosperity, 
which  supplies  them  with  comforts  and  raises  up  their  condi- 
tion. The  remark  rests  on  general  results,  aside  from  par- 
tial exceptions.  It  is  equally  borne  out  by  facts,  that  coun- 
tries in  which  there  is  an  undue  predominance  of  agricultural 
population,  are  the  poorest,  and  their  inhabitants  the  most 
depressed." 

The  Secretary  recommended  an  increase  of  duties  espec- 
ially upon  the  following  articles  :  1.  Woolen  goods  and 
foreign  wool.  2.  Fine  cotton  goods.  3.  Bar  iron.  4.  Hemp. 
He  said  : 

"  The  time  that  has  passed  since  the  tariff  of  1824,  has  been 
sufficient  to  show,  that  the  duties  fixed  by  it  upon  these  arti- 
cles, are  riot  adequate  to  the  measure  of  success  in  produc- 
ing them  at  'home,  which  their  cardinal  importance  merits. 
A  change,  since  1824,  in  the  laws  of  Great  Britain,  in  regard 
to  those  first  named,  has  also  rendered  almost  abortive  the 
provisions  of  the  tariff  in  their  favor.  For  a  period*  of  six 
successive  years,  ending  with  1826,  the  value  of  woolen 
goods  and  cotton  goods  imported  into  the  United  States  from 
that  country,  exceeds  $100,000,000  ;  and  the  value  of  iron 
and  articles  manufactured  from  iron,  $17,000,000.  During 
one  of  these  years,  the  woolens  exported  from  that  country 
to  this,  exceeded  the  amount  of  those  exported  to  the  whole 
of  Europe  put  together.  For  the  means  of  exchange  against 
an  amount  of  foreign  manufactures  so  great,  the  United 
States  have  had  three  principal  staples  of  their  soil :  wheat 


<>02  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX. 

flour,  tobacco,  and  cotton.  The  first  of  these,  that  country 
has,  by  her  laws,  positively  or  virtually  excluded,  during  the 
same  period  of  years,  from  consumption  within  her  domin- 
ions. The  second  she  has  admitted  under  a  duty  of  more 
than  200  per  cent.  The  third  she  has  received  with  little 
scruple.  She  has  known  how  to  convert  it  into  a  means  of 
wealth  to  her  own  industrious  people,  greater  than  had  ever 
before,  in  her  whole  annals,  been  derived  from  any  single 
commodity.  This  she  has  done,  first,  by  working  it  up  for 
home  use,  upon  the  largest  scale  ;  and,  next,  by  making  it 
subserve  the  interests  of  her  foreign  trade.  She  has  sent  it 
over  all  seas,  wherever  a  market  opened,  but  chiefly,  back  to 
us,  to  be  bought  under  the  enhancements  of  her  own  labor, 
at  prices  four  and  five  fold  those  which  she  paid  us  for  it. 
Commerce,  upon  the  terms  attested  by  such  facts,  can  not  be 
pronounced  just,  as  between  the  parties.  The  best  interests 
of  the  nation  point  to  the  expediency  of  reviewing  and  cor- 
recting a  species  of  commercial  intercourse  so  unequal.  The 
woolen,  cotton,  and  iron  goods,  imported  from  all  other  parts 
of  the  world,  during  the  years  indicated,  are  but  about  one- 
sixth  part  of  those  of  the  value  of  those  obtained  from  the 
country  whose  laws  fall  with  edicts  of  exclusion,  or  with 
such  disproportionate  duties,  upon  the  produce  of  the  United 
States.  The  complete  establishment  of  American  manufac- 
tures in  wool,  cotton,  iron,  and  hemp,  is  believed  to  be  of 
very  high  moment  to  the  nation." 

Mr.  Mallary,  from  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  to 
which  were  referred  sundry  memorials,  petitions,  and  re- 
monstrances, in  relation  to  an  increase  of  the  tariff  of  duties 
on  imports,  by  way  of  protection  to  home  manufactures,  on 
the  31st  of  January,  1828,  made  a  report  in  detail,  contain- 
ing the  examinations  made  by  the  Committee,  of  persons 
under  oath,  and  accompanied  by  "  a  bill  in  alteration  of  the 
several  acts  imposing  duties  on  imports."  The  bill  was 
twice  read,  and  committed.  » 

On  the  3d  of  March,  the  bill  was  taken  up  for  considera- 
tion. 

Mr.  Mallary  commenced  the  discussion  of  the  bill,  and  fin- 
ished his  speech  the  next  day. 

This  bill,  instead  of  being  confined  to  a  single  branch  of 
manufactures,  as  was  the  "  woolens  bill"  of  the  preceding 
year,  proposed  a  general  revision  of  the  tariff.  As  the  prin- 
cipal provisions  of  the  bill,  as  finally  passed,  will  ho  hereafter 
stated,  we  will  here  only  give  the  duties  proposed  l»y  the  bill 


1828.J  TARIFF  BILL  REPORTED.  203 

as  reported  on  wool  and  woolens,  showing  the  difference  be- 
tween the  duties  proposed  in  the  two  bills  of  1827  and  1828, 
respectively. 

On  wool  unmanufactured,  1  cents  a  pound,  and  in  addition 
40  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  with  a  yearly  increase  of  5  per  cent, 
until  the  duty  should  reach  50  per  cent. 

On  manufactures  wholly  or  partly  of  wool,  (except  blank- 
ets, worsted  stuff  goods,  bombazines,  hosiery,  mits,  gloves, 
caps,  and  bindings,)  the  actual  value  of  which,  at  the  place 
whence  imported,  should  not  exceed  50  cents  the  square 
yard,  was  to  be  charged  a  duty  of  16  cents  per  square 
yard. 

On  the  same  costing  over  50  cents,  and  not  exceeding  $1 
the  square  yard,  a  duty  of  40  cents. 

On  the  same  costing  over  $1,  and  not  exceeding  $2  50  the 
square  yard,  a  duty  of  $1. 

On  the  same  costing  over  $2  50,  and  not  exceeding  $4  the 
square  yard — which  were  to  be  deemed  to  have  cost  $4  the 
square  yard — a  duty  of  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

On  the  same  costing  over  $4,  a  duty  of  45  per  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem. 

Mr.  Mallary  said  it  was  already  known,  that  he  did  not 
concur  with  a  majority  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  in 
several  of  the  important  provisions  of  the  bill.  The  report 
wras  not  from  his  pen  ;  the  credit  was  due  to  the  honorable 
gentleman  from  New  York,  [Mr.  Wright.] 

Manufacturers,  Mr.  M.  said,  are  accused  of  being  governed 
by  sordid  and  selfish  views — hostile  to  all  other  classes  of 
the  people — a  body  of  iron  handed  monopolists.  From  whom 
do  these  accusations  come  ?  The  severest  are  from  a  few 
seaboard  merchants  and  foreign  agents.  A  numerous  body 
of  American  merchants  are  among  the  warmest  and  ablest 
advocates  of  the  American  policy.  In  a  country  like  this, 
where  all  can  engage  in  what  employment  they  choose — a 
country  of  such  extent,  every  where  affording  favorable  posi- 
tions— there  can  never  be  a  monopoly  by  a  body  of  manufac- 
turers, any  more  than  by  farmers  and  mechanics.  The  ten- 
dency of  protecting  manufactures  is  to  prevent  a  most  pow- 
erful and  dangerous  monopoly — a  resistless  moneyed  aris- 
tocracy. I  mean,  distinctly,  the  mercantile  interest  on  the 
sea-board.  If  the  nation  was  composed  of  farmers  and  mer- 
chants only,  what  would  be  the  consequence  ?  The  sea-board 
would  be  the  place  of  exchange  for  domestic  and  foreign  pro- 
ductions. This  wouM  be  effected  at  a  few  points  favored  by 


204  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX 

nature.  The  farming  interest  must  bear  all  charges  and  ex- 
penses of  transportation  of  its  productions — heavy,  bulky  ; 
while  the  merchant  would  secure  to  himself  his  reward,  what- 
ever might  be  the  sacrifices  and  losses  of  the  farmer.  On 
the  sea  board,  all  the  moneyed  capital  of  the  nation  would 
concentrate  ;  arid  the  interior  would  be  dependent,  in  debt, 
and  in  bondage.  I  am  not  insensible  to  the  importance  of 
foreign  commerce.  But  that  alone  never  did,  never  can,  make 
a  nation  of  extensive  territory  prosperous.  Large  cities  have 
sprung  into  existence  by  trade.  And  nations  or  states  pos 
sessing  small  domain,  like  Venice  and  Genoa,  may  have  bo- 
come  rich  and  powerful  by  trade. 

In  a  memorial  from  Charleston,  S.  C.,  said  Mr.  M.,  a  rule  is 
laid  down,  that,  "  if  a  nation  will  not  buy,  it  can  not  sell."  It 
would  seem  to  follow,  that,  if  a  people,  cannot  sell,  they  can 
not  buy.  Now,  sir,  apply  this  rule  to  six  or  seven  millions 
of  the  people  of  this  Union.  What  is  the  condition  of  the 
agricultural  States  not  engaged  in  raising  cotton,  rice,  and 
tobacco  ?  The  whole  amount  exported  from  the  United 
States  to  Great  Britain  in  1826,  was  about  $20,400,000.  01 
this,  $19,039,000  was  in  cotton,  rice,  and  tobacco  ;  leaving 
$1,361,000  from  those  parts  of  the  United  States  where  these 
thre-e  gieat  articles  are  not  produced.  We  exported,  in  all, 
to  France,  $9,130,000  ;  in  cotton  alone,  $8,170,000  ;  leaving 
$1,130,000  of  every  thing  else.  Now,  if  we  can  not  sell,  we 
can  not  buy. 

But  it  is  said,  Northern  navigation  enjoys  a  benefit  equal 
to  $5,000,000  a  year  in  the  transportation  of  Southern  pro- 
ductions. This  confers  but  a  trifling  benefit  on  the  interior- 
It  is  valuable  to  those  concerned  ;  and  I  would  not  expose  it 
to  the  least  danger.  It  will  not  be  in  jeopardy. 

It  is  said,  too,  that  we  injure  the  market  for  the  great  sta- 
ples of  the  South.  England  may  retaliate.  Why  ?  It  ap- 
pears that,  in  the  direct  trade,  we  take  from  her  five  or  six 
millions  more  than  she  takes  frcm*us.  And  three-fourths  of 
what  she  does  take  is  raw  material — cotton  ;  without  which, 
she  could  scarcely  exist.  She  takes  it  from  us,  because  the 
ivorld  besides  does  not  and  can  not  supply  her  wants. 

In  1825,  England  manufactured  to  the  value  of  $266,000,- 
000,  and  exported  $133,000,000.  In  1827,  the  manufacture 
of  cotton  fabrics  will  riot  fall  short  of  $300,000,000.  In  that 
lie  used  851,000  bales  ;  631,000  from  the  United  States  ; 
220,000  from  all  the  rest  of  the  world.  To  suppose  that  Eng- 
land would  attempt  to  punish  us  for  a  tariff  that  might  ex- 


182B.J  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  205 

elude  five  or  six  millions  of  her  manufactures,  by  excluding 
three-fourths  of  the  whole  quantity  of  the  cotton  she  uses, 
would  be  strange  indeed. 

What  is  her  policy  as  to  wool  ?  This  is  an  article  pro- 
duced by  her  own  people,  upon  which  a  multitude  of  her 
farmers  depend.  They  produce  annually  144.000,000  Ibs. 
She  uses  160,000,000  Ibs.,  and  exports  only  $27,000,000  of 
the  fabric.  Yet  she  has  reduced  the  duty  on  wool  to  a  mere 
nominal  amount.  Why  ?  To  aid  manufactures  ;  to  enable 
her  subjects  to  rival  all  other  nations.  To  refuse  to  take  our 
cotton,  then,  would  be  a  singular  contradiction  of  her  whole 
policy.  If,  to  aid  an  export  of  $27,000,000  of  woolen  fabrics, 
she  will  suffer  the  wool  of  other  nations  to  come  into  her  own 
market,  would  she  exclude  a  raw  material  she  can  not  pro- 
duce, when  her  exports  of  a  fabric  amount  to  $150,000,000  ? 

I  maintain  that  the  interests  of  the  cotton  growing  States 
are  doubly  secured  by  promoting  the  manufacture  in  the 
United  States.  The  more  rival  nations  in  the  manufacture, 
the  better.  England  now  takes  the  lead.  France  is  advanc- 
ing. Switzerland  and  Germany  are  improving  in  the  manu- 
facture. The  United  States,  having  enterprise  and  skill,  are 
following  rapidly  on.  Mutual  competition  will  compel  all  to 
produce  the  fabric  at  the  lowest  possible  price.  Any  attempt, 
therefore,  to  exclude  the  raw  material,  or  to  charge  it  with 
duties  which  would  materially  enhance  its  price,  would  be  an 
act  of  suicide.  In  case  of  war,  also,  the  advantage  of  a  do- 
mestic market  must  be  apparent. 

If  we  can  not  sell,  we  can  not  buy.  Apply  this  to  the  in- 
tercourse between  the  North  and  the  South.  What  agricul- 
tural productions  of  the  North  are  required  by  the  South  ? 
None.  We  of  the  North  want  cotton,  rice,  tobacco,  and  su- 
gar. What  have  we  to  offer  in  exchange  ?  Nothing  that  is 
derived  from  the  soil.  Should  manufactures  be  suspended, 
the  exchange  of  20  millions'  worth  of  commodities  must  be 
suspended  also. 

It  is  urged,  that  all  the  duties  on  imports  are  taxes  on 
consumers.  This  is  true  only  as  to  those  articles  which  we 
procure  exclusively  from  abroad.  It  is  said  that  we  consume 
$72,000,000  of  woolens  annually,  and  that,  on  this  amount, 
the  consumers  pay  $41,000,000  in  duties  and  merchants' 
profits,  which  operates  as  a  bounty  to  the  domestic  manu- 
facturer. Let  us  see.  $72,000,000  worth  are  used  ;  $10,- 
000,000  are  imported  ;  $±2,000,000,  at  most,  are  produced 
by  manufacturing  establishments  iu  the  United  States  ;  40,- 


200  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX 

000,000  are  the  result  of  household  industry.  How  is  the 
latter  amount  produced  ?  By  farmers  who  raise  their  own 
raw  material  ;  by  the  labor  of  their  families  ;  by  the  me- 
chanic in  the  country,  who  receives  in  compensation  for  his 
labor  the  products  of  the  farm.  In  short,  the  $40,000,000 
are  produced  by  means  that  would  hardly  be  worth  a  six- 
pence in  a  foreign  country.  Yet  the  mass  of  our  people  who 
furnish  their  own  supply  are  said  to  pay  a  tax  of  57  per  cent  ! 
Such  are  some  of  the  arguments  addressed  to  the  farmers,  to 
excite  their  hostility  to  the  manufacturers. 

But,  "  if  we  do  not  buy,  we  can  not  sell,"  we  are  told. 
Wool,  for  instance,  is  one  of  the  great  staples  of  a  portion  of 
the  United  States.  Suppose  we  were  dependent  on  England 
for  our  clothing,  and  we  depended  on  the  produce  of  our 
flocks  for  payment.  I  have  the  most  authentic  evidence  in 
my  possession  of  the  benefits  of  the  English  market  to  the 
American  wool  grower.  An  American  farmer  sold  to  the 
American  manufacturer  a  part  of  his  wool  for  50  cents  a 
pound.  The  remainder  of  the  same  quality  he  sent  to  Eng- 
land to  be  manufactured,  and  to  be  allowed  the  value  of  the 
wool.  The  return  was  23  §  cents,  for  such  as  the  American 
manufacturer  had  paid  50  for  !  Suppose  wool  in  Vermont  is 
worth  50  cents  ;  in  England,  23§  ;  and  suppose  that  the  fab- 
ric was  admitted  duty  free,  and  without  charges  except  the 
merchants',  estimated  at  19  per  cent.;  and  these  must  be 
paid  for  the  good  of  the  nation  ;  what  would  be  the  result  ? 
26  pounds  of  wool  would  bu}r  a  coat  in  England  ;  12  pounds 
in  the  United  States,  of  the  domestic  manufacturer. 

But,  it  is  still  urged,  duties  are  taxes  on  the  consumer.  We 
will  see  how  this  operates  on  other  articles  of  domestic  man- 
ufacture. It  is  supposed  that  we  produce  cotton  fabrics  to 
the  value  of  $50,000,000.  A  great  proportion  is  valued  at  16 
cents  and  under,  the  square  yard.  The  duties  and  charges 
would  be  about  10  cents.*  Remove  the  protection,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  rule  that  the  duty  is  so  much  tax  on  the  con- 
sumer, we  should  be  furnished  with  the  fabric  at  4  cents  the 
running  yard.  The  absurdity  is  apparent.  Take  a  fabric 
valued  at  9  cents  the  square  yard :  the  duties  and  charges 


*  So  high  a  duty  results  from  the  fact,  which  the  reader  will  remember, 
that  all  colt  at  the  place  whence  imported,  less  than  25  cents, 

mu<t  be  defined  to  have  cost  23  cents,  and  charged  with  the  prescribed 
ad  valor •-,//  duty ;  which,  with  the  attendant  charges,  would  amount  to 
aboul  10  cents. 


1828.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  207 

would  be  about  the  same  as  I  have  stated.  According  to 
the  rule,  this  fabric  could  be  afforded  for  nothing  !  Take 
nails  ;  the  duty  is  5  cents  ;  the  average  price  in  market  may 
be  7  cents.  The  consumer,  by  the  rule  laid  down,  should  have 
them  for  2  cents  per  pound.  The  duty  on  cheese  is  9  cents 
per  pound  ;  the  average  value  in  market  not  over  7  cents. 
According  to  the  rule,  the  consumer  is  entitled  to  2  cents  for 
every  pound  lie  eats. 

Mr.  M.  next  examined  some  of  the  principal  details  of  the 
bill.  On  the  subject  of  wool  and  woolens,  he  differed  with 
the  majority  of  the  Committee.  He  thought  the  proposed 
duty  on  wool  too  high.  His  argument,  in  substance,  may  be 
briefly  stated  thus  :  The  farmer  must  have  a  market  for  his 
wool.  Where  is  it  to  be  had  ?  In  England  ?  No.  In 
France  ?  No.  In  Germany  ?  No.  By  evidence  taken  be- 
fore the  Committee  it  appeared,  that  the  foreign  manufac- 
turer obtained  the  raw  material  at  a  far  less  price  than  the 
American.  As  the  farmer,  then,  is  dependent  on  the  home 
market  for  the  sale  of  his  wool,  the  domestic  manufacture 
must  be  encouraged.  But  if  the  price  of  wool  is  raised  by 
an  excessive  duty,  he  can  not  compete  with  the  foreign  man- 
ufacturer, who,  by  buying  the  raw  material  cheaper, , is  en- 
abled to  monopolize  the  market  in  this  country.  Such  duty, 
therefore,  instead  of  benefiting  the  wool  producer,  would  have 
a  contrary  effect. 

Mr.  M.  was  opposed  to  any  additional  duty  on  wool  cost- 
ing over  8  cents  per  pound,  for  the  reason  that  such  wool 
was  not  raised  in  this  country.  The  manufacture  of  it,  he 
said,  is  established.  .  The  fabric  which  we  formerly  imported 
is  now  produced  at  home.  But  the  raw  material  we  do  not 
produce.  The  evidence  before  the  Committee  proves  that 
the  lowest  priced  wool  of  native  growth,  is  worth  from  20  to 
25  cents.  Farmers,  therefore,  will  not  grow  wool  worth  10 
or  12  cents,  when  they  can  as  well  produce  that  which  is 
worth  40  or  50  cents.  From  this  coarse  wool  the  coarsest 
fabrics  are  produced  :  negro  cloths,  inferior  baizes,  and  flan- 
nels— used  by  the  poorer  classes,  who  have  of  late  been  the 
subject  of  great  commiseration  and  sympathy.  Besides,  re- 
lying on  the  provisions  of  the  tariff  of  1824,  establishments 
have  been  erected  for  the  express  purpose  of  using  this  kind 
of  raw  material.  The  American  manufacturer  of  this  fabric 
must  be  sacrificed  if  the  proposed  duty  be  imposed. 

Mr.  M.  proceeded  with  his  examination  of  the  bill  in  detail, 
and  endeavored  to  show,  by  example,  the  bad  effects  of  the 


208  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX. 

adoption  of  some  of  its  provisions.  At  the  close  of  his  speech, 
he  moved  a  substitute  for  that  part  of  the  bill  which  related 
to  wool  and  woolens.  He  proposed  to  leave  the  coarse  im- 
ported wool  subject  to  the  duty  imposed  by  the  act  of  1824, 
and  to  impose  on  wool  costing*  over  8  cents  a  pound,  a  duty 
of  20  cents  a  pound,  to  be  increased  2|  cents  annually,  until 
the  duty  should  amount  to  50  cents. 

The  duty  on  manufactures  of  wool  he  proposed  to  estimate 
on  the  same  minimums  as  in  the  "  woolens  bill,"  reported  by 
himself  the  year  preceding,  except  that  of  40  cents,  for  which 
he  substituted  50  cents  ;  and  for  the  duty  of  33  J  per  cent. 
ad  valorem,  he  now  proposed  40  per  cent.,  with  an  increase  of 
5  per  cent,  annually  until  the  duty  should  be  50  per  cent. 

Mr.  Stevenson,  of  Pa.,  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Man- 
ufactures, also  examined  and  explained  the  bill.  The  Com- 
mittee were  convinced,  that  the  worst  principle  of  the  tariff 
of  1824,  was,  that  it  imposed  only  a  part  of  the  duty  on  wool- 
ens on  the  30th  of  June,  1824,  and  held  out  a  premium  to  im- 
portation from  that  time  to  the  30th  of  June,  1825,  when  an 
additional  duty  of  3J  per  cent,  was  to  take  effect.  The  con- 
sequence was,  that  instead  of  the  usual  average  supply  of  8J 
millions,  there  were  upwards  of  12  millions  of  woolens  im- 
ported in  1825.  This  produced,  mainly,  the  great  depression 
of  1826,  and  the  destruction  of  some  factories,  and  great 
losses  to  others,  but  from  which  they  are  now  recovering,  as 
the  importations  are  again  reduced  to  about  8  millions,  ex- 
clusive of  carpetings.  The  Committee  therefore  endeavored 
to  avoid  the  error  of  progressive  duties. 

The  coarse  imported  wool  costing  not  over  10  cents  a 
pound,  was,  by  the  act  of  1824,  subject  to  a  duty  of  only  15 
per  cent.  The  reason  for  increasing  the  duty  on  this  kind  of 
wool,  was,  that  it  came  in  very  dirty.  It  was  in  proof  that, 
when  cleansed,  it  loses  nearly  one-half ;  he  would  estimate 
the  loss  at  only  40  per  cent.;  and  as  the  average  cost  of  it 
was  8  cents  a  pound,  its  value,  when  washed,  would,  with 
the  expense  of  washing,  be  at  least  14  cents.  This  brniiirlit 
it  into  competition  with  the  coarsest  of  American  wool.  To 
prevent  the  evasion  of  the  present  duty  by  importing  good 
but  dirty  wool,  and  to  protect  the  domestic  wool  grower,  a 
direct  or  specific  duty  \  •  )sed  on  every  pound. 

Mr.  Anderson,  of  Maine,  believed  the  tariff  of  1824,  if  its 
provisions  were  fairly  rarri'-d  int-»  <  iV-'ct,  would  give  to  the 
manufacturing  intere.  is  of  the  country  all  the  protection  they 
ought  at  ihis  time  to  ruccivo.  Representing  a  shipping  dia- 


1828.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE  209 

trict  whose  trade  was  chiefly  with  the  West  Indies,  he  was  op 
posed  to  the  increase  of  the  duty  on  hemp,  duck  and  other  arti- 
cles used  in  fitting  out  and  navigating  vessels,  and  upon  the 
spirits,  and  molasses  imported  from  the  West  India  islands. 
The  State  of  Maine  was  extensively  engaged  in  this  trade. 
The  exports  to  these  islands  consisted  chictly  of  the  produc- 
tions of  the  forest  and  the  fisheries.  The  timber  in  the  forest 
was  of  little  value.  Nearly  the  whole  of  its  eventual  value 
was  produced  by  its  manufacture  and  transportation  to  its 
proper  and  only  market.  The  lumber  business,  he  said,  gave 
employment  to  $4,000,000  capital,  14,000  men,  and  10,000 
yoke  of  oxen.  Of  equal  or  greater  importance  was  the  fish- 
ing interest.  These  being  products  of  great  bulk  arid  burden, 
they  required  a  large  amount  of  shipping  for  their  transpor- 
tation. Molasses  was  the  principal  article  to  be  had  in 
exchange  for  lumber  and  fish  :  cash  could  not  be  procured 
for  them. 

It  may  here  be  remarked,  that,  with  respect  to  the  duty  on 
malasses  and  several  other  articles,  as  well  as  on  wool  and 
woolens,  the  friends  of  protection  were  divided.  The  exist- 
ing duty  on  molasses  was  5  cents  a  gallon  ;  the  bill  proposed 
10  cents.  The  reasons  assigned  for  the  increase  were, 

1.  The  present  duty  was  disproportionate  to  that  on  sugar  ; 
a  gallon  of  molasses  being  equal,  as  a  sweetening-  matter,  to 
8  pounds  of  sugar,  on  which  was  paid  a  duty  of  24   cents. 

2.  Much  of  the  article  being  used   for  distillation,   it  came 
into  competition  with  the  grain  of  the  farmer,  for  whose  pro- 
tection the  increase  was  necessary.      The   increase  was  op- 
posed, because,  1.    It  was  an  article  of  general  use  among 
all  classes  of  the  people,  and  of  which  this  country  could  not 
furnish  a   supply.     2.    It  would  injure  our  trade  with  the 
West    Indies.       This   was   said   to   be   the    only   fair   and 
reciprocal  foreign  trade  of  much  importance  enjoyed  by  our 
citizens. 

Another  ground  of  opposition  to  the  proposed  increase  of 
duty  on  molasses,  was,  that  it  would  be  likely  to  exclude  the 
poorer  qualities,  which  were  fit  only  for  distillation,  and, 
consequently,  to  advance  the  price,  in  the  West  India  mar- 
ket, of  the  better  qualities.  Both  were  sold  together  ;  and 
the  better  article  could  not  be  bought  alone  without  paying  a 
price  which  would  compensate  the  seller  for  his  loss  on  the 
poorer. 

Mr.  Claiborne,  of  Va.,  was  decidedly  opposed  to  the  princi- 
ples of  the  bill,  and  more  so  to  the  amendment  offered  by  the 


210  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX 

gentleman  from  Vermont.  Some  gentlemen  suppose  that  we, 
who  are  opposed  to  this  bill,  are  opposed  to  all  tariffs  ;  but 
it  is  not  so.  What  intelligent  citizen  is  opposed  to  a  moder- 
ate, judicious,  and  constitutional  tariff  ?  None.  The  framers 
of  the  Constitution  threw  around  the  grant  of  power  to  im- 
pose taxes,  wise  and  salutary  restrictions.  They  provided 
that  the  General  Government  might  impose  such  duties  on 
imported  articles  as  would  be  sufficient  to  sustain  the  Gov- 
ernment, pay  the  public  debts,  and  defend  the  country. 
Demonstrate  that  additional  duties  on  woolens,  &c.,  &c.,  are 
necessary  for  these  purposes,  and  I  will  support  the  general 
system  ;  but  this  is  not  pretended.  Sir,  by  the  Constitution, 
you  can  impose  duties  only  for  revenue.  Mr.  C.  argued  this 
question  at  some  length  ;  and  then  discussed  the  tariff  ques- 
tion, and  strongly  opposed  the  bill. 

Mr.  Wright,  of  N.  Y.,  who  had  drafted  the  report  which 
accompaned  the  bill,  spoke  at  great  length  in  support  of  the 
bill  He  examined  it  in  detail,  and  defended  its  several  pro- 
visions against  the  objections  of  its  opponents,  adducing,  in 
the  course  of  his  speech,  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  who 
bad  been  examined  by  the  Committee.  In  some  of  the  posi- 
tions of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  [Mr.  Mallary,]  he 
expressed  his  concurrence. 

The  first  position  of  his  speech,  said  Mr.  W.,  which  I  shall 
notice,  is,  that  duties  on  imports,  imposed  with  a  view  of 
protection,  do  not  operate  as  taxes  upon  consumers.  To  this 
I  fully  consent  ;  and  I  had  supposed  that  it  was  conceded 
by  all  the  friends  of  the  protecting  system.  His  arguments 
to  prove  its  correctness  are  certainly  sound  if  his  data  are 
correct.  To  his  reasons  I  can  add  nothing.  They  seem  to 
me  perfectly  conclusive.  To  another  proposition  of  the  hon- 
orable Chairman  I  give  my  assent.  It  is,  that  the  whole 
market  for  raw  wool  in  this  country  must  be  to  our  own  man- 
ufacturers. This  is  undeniably  true.  It  must  be  idle  for  our 
fanners  to  expect  to  export  wool,  when  it  is  now  65  per  cent, 
cheaper  abroad  than  it  is  here.  Their  only  market  must  be 
at  home.  This  market  our  manufacturers  do  and  must  con- 
trol ;  and  they  must  always  regulate  it  by  the  price  they 
can  get  for  their  cloths. 

Another  position  of  the  honorable  Chairman  was,  that  a 
supply  of  coarse  wool  is  not  produced  in  this  country.  To 
the  correctness  of  this  proposition,  I  entirely  dissent.  His 
amendment  proposes,  that  all  wool  costing  in  a  foreign  coun- 
try 8  cents  per  pound,  or  under,  shall  pay  the  present  duty  of 


1823.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  211 

15  per  cent,  ad  valorem  only,  and  imposes  a  specific  duty  of 
20  cents  upon  all  wool  costing  more  than  8  cents.  The  pro- 
posed duty  of  15  per  cent,  on  the  coarse  wools  can  not  check 
their  importation.  The  importation  of  these  qualities  he 
would  encourage,  because  the  same  qualities  are  not  pro- 
duced in  this  country.  I  believe  the  United  States  now  pro- 
dfice  sufficient  quantities  of  coarse  wool  for  every  demand  of 
the  present  manufactories.  But  suppose  the  qualities  of 
coarse  wools  imported  are  not  and  will  not  be  produced  in 
this  country.  Is  it  sound  policy  to  import  them  free  of  duty  ? 
I  must  first  answer  another  question  before  I  can  yield  rny 
assent  to  this  policy.  Does  this  country  now  produce  wool 
of  any  quality  sufficient  to  give  full  employment  to  its  manu- 
facturing capital  ?  If  I  can  answer  this  question  affirma- 
tively, then  I  should  answer  the  other  negatively  ;  for  I  have 
already  said,  that  it  is  not  for  the  interest  of  this  country  to 
import  a  foreign  material  for  the  use  of  her  manufactories, 
when  a  full  supply  of  the  same  material  of  domestic  produc- 
tion may  be  obtained.  [Mr.  W.  here  referred  to  evidence 
given  before  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  from  which,  and 
from  other  facts  and  estimates  as  to  the  number  of  sheep  in 
the  country,  the  great  stock  of  wool  on  hand,  the  quantity  of 
cloth  manufactured,  &c.,  he  concluded  that  enough  was  pro- 
duced for  the  present  demand  ;  and  no  one  doubted  the 
ability  to  extend  the  growing  of  wool  even  more  rapidly  than 
the  manufactories  can  be  increased  by  the  present  capital 
seeking  that  investment.] 

But,  said  Mr.  W.,  notwithstanding  these  evidences  that  the 
United  States  do  produce  a  full  supply  of  domestic  wool,  large 
quantities  of  foreign  wool  are  annually  imported.  And  one 
evidence  that  those  importations  conflict  with  the  domestic 
wool,  is  furnished  by  the  fact,  that  little  or  no  coarse  common 
domestic  wool  is  purchased  by  the  factories  on  the  sea  board, 
where  coarse  imported  wools  are  readily  obtained.  This  wool 
also  conflicts  with  the  domestic  by  supplying  the  same  mar- 
ket which  the  domestic  wool  ought  to  supply.  Another  rea- 
son for  changing  and  increasing  the  coarse  imported  wools, 
is  the  opinion,  that  many  of  these  importations  are  made  in 
evasion  of  the  spirit  of  existing  laws  ;  and  that,  by  this 
means,  wool  is  imported  invoiced  at  10  cents  which  conflicts 
with  wool  of  a  superior  quality.  Some  of  it  is  not  cleansed 
at  all ;  but  on  being  cleansed  and  assorted,  a  large  share  of 
it  would  be  found  fit  for  the  manufacture  of  middling  quality 
cloths.  Since  1824,  the  importation  of  coarse  wool  has  in- 
creased, and  that  of  finer  wools  has  decreased. 


212  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX 

Mr.  Wright  presented  several  statements  in  tabular  form 
in  illustration  of  the  practical  operation  and  the  effects  of  the 
bill  and  proposed  amendment. 

As  to  the  alleged  frauds  in  the  importation  of  those  coarse 
•wools,  the  honorable  Chairman  has  given  all  the  answer 
which  he  could  have  given  ;  that,  if  these  wools  arc  imported 
in  a  foul  state  to  disguise  their  quality,  they  will  necessarily 
lose  in  cleansing,  and  that  loss  must  operate  to  increase  the 
duty  upon  the  cleansed  wool.  This  is  true,  practically,  to 
some  extent,  but  not  to  the  extent  which  the  gentleman 
seems  to  suppose.  But,  suppose  it  to  have  been  true  up  to 
this  time  ;  what  effect  has  it  upon  the  subject  now  before  the 
Committee  ?  We  are  now  to  reason,  not  upon  the  existing 
law,  but  upon  the  effect  of  the  law  we  are  about  to  pass. 
Let  us  then  see  what  will  be  the  inducements  to  these  frauds, 
if  the  proposed  amendment  is  adopted.  One  pound  of  wool 
worth  in  a  foreign  market  16  cents,  will,  by  that  amendment, 
pay  20  cents  duty.  Mix  \vith  that  pound  of  wool  one  pound 
of  dirt,  making  two  pounds  in  weight,  and  worth  eight  cents 
per  pound;  and  what  duty  will  it  then  pay?  The  two 
pounds  will  still  be  worth  only  16  cents,  and  will  by  that 
amendment,  only  be  charged  with  a  duty  of  15  per  cent., 
equal  to  2  y6^  cents,  upon  the  2  pounds  of  wool  and  dirt. 
Here,  then,  you  will  have  the  same  pound  of  wool  imported, 
and  consequently  conflicting  with  a  pound  of  the  quality  of 
our  own  wool,  while,  by  this  simple  fraud,  17  T3/o  cents 
arc  saved  upon  the  duty  it  should  pay — an  amount  greater 
than  the  cost  of  the  pound  of  wool  itself  in  the  foreign  market ; 
and  the  same  wool  would  pay  a  duty  of  2  Tc^  instead  of 
20  cents.  Does,  then,  the  bill  reported  by  the  Committee 
furnish  an  effectual  check  to  these  frauds  ?  That  bill  pro- 
poses a  duty  of  7  cents,  specifically,  upon  every  pound  of 
wool  imported,  and  a  further  duty  upon  all  wool  of  40  per 
cent,  ad  valorem.  The  duty,  at  that  rate,  upon  one  pound  of 
wool  worth  16  cents  in  the  foreign  market,  would  be  about 
14  cents  ;  and  any  attempt  to  disguise  its  quality  by  moans 
which  should  add  to  its  weight,  would  only  increase  the  duty 
bjT  7  cents  upon  every  pound  weight  added.  This  view  of 
the  case  must  convince  even  the  honorable  Chairman  himself, 
that  this  provision  of  the  bill  is  to  be  preferred,  and  that  hia 
amendment  only  proclaims  a  bounty  upon  frauds  in  the  im- 
portation of  coarse  wools. 

Mr.  W.  defended  the  minimums  reported  by  the  Committee  ; 
particularly  the  dollar  minimum,  which  embraced  all  cloths 


182ft.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  213 

between  50  cents  and  $1.  This  was  intended  to  make  the 
duty  light  upon  the  cloths  worn  by  the  common  laboring 
classes  at  the  North.  Adopt  the  amendment,  said  Mr.  W., 
exclude  those  cloths,  as  I  have  shown  this  will  do,  and  I 
as!;,  where  is  the  minimum  which  will  check  attempts  at 
me  nopoly  pnd  extortion  ?  What  guard  will  our  own  citizens 
ha  ?e  against  the  monopoly  of  our  own  manufacturers  ?  They 
will  have  none,  sir  ;  and  the  cloths  worn  by  them  are  those 
which  you  ought  to  touch  lightly,  if  at  all.  After  you  get 
beyond  $2  50,  it  matters  little  what  duty  you  impose.  The 
article  then  becomes  a  luxury,  and  the  duty  falls  upon  those 
able  to  bear  it,  if  it  shall  operate,  as  is  here  contended,  to 
raise  the  price  ;  and  if  the  funds  of  the  purchaser  are  not 
equal  to  the  advanced  price,  he  has  only  to  drop  down  to 
the  lower  minimum,  and  purchase  cloth  of  a  little  coarser 
qualitj-.  What,  then,  is  the  character  of  the  bill  ?  Its  policy 
is  to  reduce  the  duty  to  the  lowest  practicable  point  upon 
tho  coarse  and  common  cloths,  and  to  increase  it  ratably 
up 3n  the  fine.  Hence  the  duty  is  depressed  as  low  as  possi- 
ble upon  the  50  cents  minimum,  and  not  quite  so  rigidly  de- 
pressed upon  that  between  50  cents  and  $1,  while,  upon  the 
finsr  qualities,  it  is  much  increased  beyond  either.  I  believe 
monopoly  upon  the  cloths  the  poor  are  compelled  to  purchase, 
should  be  guarded  against.  But  the  bill  furnishes,  in  its 
present  shape,  all  the  protection  which  the  manufacturer 
needs,  upon  every  description  of  cloth  embraced  in  it,  the 
raw  material  remaining  as  at  present. 

As  to  the  duty  proposed  upon  wool  operating  to  increase 
th'3  price,  what  does  the  bill  do  ?  It  does  all  that  can  be 
done.  It  puts  the  wool  market  into  the  hands  of  the  manu- 
facturer, and  he  must  control  it.  Will  he  then  raise  the 
price  of  the  wool,  unless  the  price  of  cloths  is  raised  also  ? 
"Will  he  give  more  for  wool  than  the  prices  of  his  cloths  will 
warrant  ?  I  know,  sir,  I  shall  be  asked,  why,  then  propose 
to  increase  the  duty  on  wool  ?  I  do  not  expect  to  raise  the 
pri  :e  of  the  article  by  doing  so,  unless  the  effect  of  the  bill 
should  be  to  raise  the  price  of  cloths  so  as  to  warrant  it, 
But  I  do  expect  it  will  extend  the  demand  for  domestic  wool  ; 
that  it  will  give  this  the  place  of  the  foreign  wool.  The 
farmer  must  go  to  the  manufacturer  for  a  market.  I  would 
make  this  obligation  reciprocal.  I  would  compel  the  manu- 
facturer to  go  to  the  farmer  for  his  supply  of  wool.  Then  the 
regulation  of  the  price  would  be  reciprocal  between  them 
But  now  the  manufacturer  has  a  double  advantage.  He  can 


2H  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX 

choose  between  the  foreign  and  the  domestic  wool,  while 
much  of  the  foreign  is  introduced  nearly  free  of  duty.  In  re- 
lation further,  to  this  argument,  that  the  increase  of  duty 
upon  wool  will  increase  the  price,  has  that  been  the  effect  of 
the  increase  of  duty  imposed  by  the  tariff  of  1324  ?  Has  not 
the  price  of  wool  been  constantly  and  rapidly  diminishing 
since  the  passage  of  that  law  ?  It  has,  sir.  Nor  was  this 
reduction  of  price  occasioned  by  the  duty  ;  but  it  has  been 
checked  by  it.  Repeal  the  duty  ;  and  would  wool  rise  in 
price  ?  No,  sir  ;  not  while  wool  abroad  remains  so  low  ; 
nor  while  cloths  remain  at  their  present  prices.  Give  the 
manufacturer  the  protection  he  needs,  as  against  the  for- 
eigner, and  then  he  will  regulate  the  wool  market  as  his  bus- 
iness will  warrant.  Whence,  then,  is  this  alarm  on  the  sub- 
ject of  an  increased  duty  on  wool  ?  I  do  not  see  the  cause 
of  it.  The  experience  of  the  past  does  not  warrant  it  ;  nor 
do  I  believe  the  evils  predicted  will  be  at  all  realized. 

Mr.  Woodcock,  of  N.  Y.,  said  he  regretted  that  his  col- 
league, [Mr.  Wright,]  in  reading  from  the  testimony,  had 
not  turned  his  attention  to  the  only  material  part  of  the  evi- 
dence which  applied  to  that  subject,  in  attempting  to  prove 
that  the  bill,  as  reported,  gave  as  much  protection  to  the 
manufacturer  as  he  asked  ;  and  that  only  a  corresponding 
duty  was  proposed  to  be  given  to  the  raw  material.  He  re? 
gretted  that  his  colleague  and  himself,  having  the  same  ob- 
ject in  view — a  tariff  which  will  enable  the  manufacturer  to 
come  into  market  with  his  goods  in  competition  with  tho 
importer,  and  give  to  the  wool  grower  a  market  for  his  wool, 
and  to  the  agriculturist  a  market  for  his  surplus  produce — 
should,  from  the  testimony,  have  arrived  at  different  conclu- 
sions. He  believed  that  the  bill  would  give  no  further  aid 
to  the  manufacturer,  and  that  its  promised  aid  to  the  wool 
grower  was  illusive,  and  would  not  be  realized.  [Mr.  W. 
here  read  the  material  part  of  the  testimony  which  went  to 
show  the  necessity  of  an  increase  of  duty  on  woolens,  to 
raise  the  price  of  wool,  and  which  his  colleague  had  not 
read.] 

Mr.  M.  said  he  was  convinced  that  the  low  price,  and  the 
constant  depreciation  of  that  price,  of  the  domestic  wool,  was 
not  produced  by  the  importation  of  foreign  wool,  but  by  the 
importation  of  foreign  woolens.  This  fact  is  proved  by  every 
•witness.  They  say  the  manufacturer  can  not  afford  to  pay  a 
higher  price  for  wool  than  he  now  does  ;  and  what  is  the 
cause  ?  They  all  swear,  that  the  low  price  of  foreign  cloths 


1828.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  215 

will  not  permit  them.  The  people  would  ask,  whence  came 
this  bill  ?  Why  did  it  attempt  to  support  a  principle  that  is 
contradicted  by  every  witness  ?  His  colleague  admitted 
that  the  proposed  duty  on  wool  would  not  raise  the  price  of 
domestic  wool.  Why  then  was  the  duty  proposed?  The 
witnesses  tell  us  it  would  ruin  the  manufacturer,  unless  cor- 
responding duties  \vererlaid  on  imported  cloths. 

His  colleague  had  said  that  the  farmers  can  raise  wool 
enough  to  supply  all  demands,  and  had  gone  much  into  de- 
tail as  to  the  number  of  sheep  in  the  country,  and  their  pro- 
bable increase.  But  the  difficulty  would  be  in  persuading 
the  farmers  to  grow  wool  to  an  extent  beyond  what  was  re- 
quired in  their  own  families,  if  there  was  no  market  for  their 
surplus  wool.  It  is  no  object  to  the  farmer  to  raise  sheep, 
unless  he  can  sell  his  wool  at  a  fair  price.  If  the  manufac- 
turer can  not  buy,  who  will  buy  ?  and  why  is  this  prospect 
of  gain  held  out  to  the  farmer  ?  His  colleague  had  attempt- 
ed to  show  that  it  would  be  for  the  interest  of  the  farmer  to 
raise  coarse  wool  as  a  substitute  for  the  imported  coarse 
wool  from  which  the  coarse  woolens,  blankets,  and  negro 
cloths  are  manufactured.  Mr.  W.  went  into  a  calculation 
to  show  that  it  could  not  be  raised  without  loss  to  the 
farmer. 

Foreign  coarse  wool  costs  from  8  to  10  cents  the  pound,  in 
"its  unclean  state.  In  cleaning  it  will  waste  nearly  50  per 
cent.  ;  so  that  the  actual  cost  to  the  manufacturer  is  12  to 
15  cents.  The  manufacturer  is  now  paying  the  farmer  for 
wool  from  the  native  breed  of  sheep,  from  18  to  25  cents. 
This  wool  wastes,  in  cleaning,  about  33  per  cent.  ;  making 
the  actual  price  paid  the  farmer  for  cleansed  native  wool,  24 
to  33  cents  the  pound,  to  be  made  into  cloth  which  is  made 
from  foreign. coarse  wool  in  a  cleansed  state  which  now  costs 
from  12  to  15  cents  the  pound.  What  profit,  then,  would  the 
farmer  make  ?  They  tell  us  the  keeping  of  sheep  in  the 
North  costs  from  100  to  125  cents  a  year  per  head  ;  in  the 
West,  where  winters  are  less  severe,  from  75  to  100  cents. 
Take  the  average  price  at  $1,  and  allow  to  each  sheep  2| 
pounds  of  wool,  which,  in  cleansing,  would  be  reduced  to  2 
pounds  from  each  sheep,  which  the  farmer,  to  supply  the 
manufacturer  in  the  place  of  foreign  wool,  must  sell  at  15 
cents  a  pound,  which  would  be  but  30  cents — a  loss  on  each 
native  sheep  of  70  cents  a  year.  While  his  colleague,  by  a 
duty  which  amounts  to  prohibition  on  coarse  foreign  wool, 
would- induce  his  constituents  to  increase  their  flocks  in  the 


21 G  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX 

native  breed,  he  should  recommend  to  wool  growers  to  im- 
prove their  flocks,  and  grow  the  best  Merino  and  Saxon 
wools,  which  will  bring  the  greatest  price  ;  and  while  his 
colleague  would  reduce  the  duty  on  coarse  woolens,  and  give 
the  British  manufacturers  a  monopoly  in  our  market,  he  would 
increase  the  dut3r,  and,  by  increasing  it,  raise  the  price  of 
wool,  and  protect  and  reward  national  industry. 

Mr.  W.  trusted  he  had  shown  that  the  duty  proposed  on 
wool  was  illusive,  and  would  never  be  realized,  unless  a 
corresponding  duty  is  imposed  on  foreign  fabrics,  which  the 
bill  did  not  contemplate,  as  he  should  now  proceed  to  show. 
The  bill,  he  said,  proposed  a  duty  on  cloth  costing  not  over 
50  cents  a  square  yard,  of  16  cents  (about  33  per  cent.  ;)  and 
on  a  square  yard  costing  not  over  $1,  a  duty  of  40  cents  (40 
per  cent.  ;)  while  on  wool  unmanufactured  was  to  be  charged 
a  duty  of  7  cents  a  pound,  and  40  per  cent,  in  addition. 
Assuming  the  gentleman's  estimate  to  be  true,  it  takes  2 
pounds  of  uncleansed  coarse  wool  to  make  1  yard  of  cloth 
which  would  come  under  the  first  minimum,  costing  in  Eng- 
land 9  cents  per  pound, 18  cents. 

Labor  and  expense  of  manufacturing, 18 

Duty,  as  proposed  by  the  bill, 16 

52 

The  same  wool  would  cost  the  American  man- 
ufacturer 12|  cents  per  pound, 25 

The  same  expense  of  manufacturing, 18 

Add  the  duty  proposed  on  wool,  and  which 
his  colleague  forgot,  7  cts.  per  Ib.  and  40  per 
cent., 21 

67  cents. 

Under  the  first  minimum,  therefore,  of  the  coarse  clotha, 
the  British  manufacturer  would  be  able  to  undersell  the 
American  15  cents  on  a  square  yard.  The  second  minimum, 
or  cloth  made  in  England,  which,  with  the  duty  added,  would 
cost  $1,  would,  according  to  Mr.  W.'s  estimate,  cost  the 
American  manufacturer  $1  08£,  thus  giving  to  the  British 
manufacturer  a  protection  of  8£  cents  the  square  yard.  The 
bill,  therefore,  was  in  effect  a  bill  further  to  encourage 
the  importation  of  foreign  woolens  ;  and  would  place  the 
manufacturer  in  a  less  advantageous  situation  than  the  law 
of  1824. 

Mr.  W.  said,  if  you  should  go  to  the  large  wool  grower,  he 


1828.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  217 

would  tell  you,  "  Protect  the  manufacturer  ;  enable  him  to  pay 
me  a  fair  price  for  my  wool."  If  you  should  go  to  the  agri- 
culturist, he  would  show  you  his  granary,  and  ask  you  to 
find  a  market  at  home  for  his  surplus  produce,  and  would 
tell  you  to  encourage  the  manufacturer  ;  "  that,  if  you  would 
enable  him  to  make  cloths,  he  will  take  my  wheat  in  return  : 
the  British  manufacturer  will  not."  Is  it  not  wise  then,  to 
encourage  these  great  interests,  and  render  our  country  in- 
dependent of  foreign  workshops  and  foreign  mechanics  ? 

The  debate  was  continued  from  this  time  (March  11,)  till 
the  27th,  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Mallary.  Those  who  par- 
ticipated in  the  discussion  were  Messrs.  Davis,  and  Bates,  of 
Mass.,  Johns,  of  Del,  Barnard  and  Storrs,  of  New  York,  Bur- 
ges,  of  R.  I.,  and  Anderson  of  Pa.,  in  support  of  the  amend- 
ment ;  and  Messrs.  Ingham  and  Forward,  of  Pa.,  and  Hoff- 
man, of  N.  Y.,  against  the  amendment,  and  in  favor  of  the 
bill  as  reported  by  the  Committee.  All  of  these  gentlemen 
were  friendly  to  the  manufacturing  interest.  The  principal 
difference  of  opinion  seems  to  have  been  upon  the  effect  of 
the  duty  on  wool  upon  the  producer  and  the  manufacturer. 
On  the  27th  of  March,  the  question  was  taken  on  the  amend- 
ment of  Mr.  Mallary,  which  was  rejected  :  Ayes,  78  ;  noes, 
102!. 

Mr.  Mallary  then  offered  an  amendment,  proposing  the  same 
ad  valorem  duty  as  in  the  bill,  but  omitting  the  7  cents  a 
pound  specific  duty  ;  and  the  same  duty  on  woolens,  as  that 
proposed  in  his  former  amendment. 

Mr.  Buchanan  moved  to  amend  the  amendment  ;  the  object 
of  which  was  to  strike  out  the  minimums  from  Mr.  Mallary's 
amendment.  Mr.  B.  spoke  in  favor  of  his  amendment,  arid 
Mr.  Wright  opposed  it,  and  defended  the  bill.  The  amend- 
ment was,  (March  28,)  rejected  without  a  count. 

The  question  being  taken  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Mal- 

ry, that  also  was  decided  in  the  negative  :  Ayes,  97  ;  noes, 


The  debate  on  the  bill  was  now  (March  31,)  resumed  by 
Mr.  Sprague,  of  Maine,  who  concluded  his  speech  the  next 
day,  on  a  motion  made  by  himself  to  strike  from  the  bill  the 
parts  which  increased  the  duties  on  hemp  and  molasses.  The 
debate  was  continued  until  the  4th  of  April,  when  the  amend- 
ment was  negatived  by  a  large  majority. 

The  debate  was  further  continued  on  sundry  proposed 
amendments  relating  to  certain  articles  of  woolens,  cotton 

10 


218  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX 

bagging,  spirits,  molasses,  &c.,  some  of  which  were  adopted, 
when,  on  the  8th  of  April, 

Mr.  Mallary  moved  the  amendment  he  had  before  offered, 
with  the  alteration  of  inserting  "  carpets,  carpeting,"  after 
"  blankets,"  as  among  the  excepted  articles  of  woolens  sub- 
ject to  the  proposed  ad  valorem  duty  ;  which,  after  a  long 
speech  of  Mr.  Stewart,  of  Pa.,  on  the  subject  of  protection 
generally,  and  against  certain  provisions  of  the  bill,  and  a 
reply  from  Mr.  Wright,  of  N.  Y.,  in  defense  of  the  bill,  the 
motion  of  Mr.  Mallary  was  negatived  :  Yeas,  80  ;  nays,  115. 

Mr.  Mallary,  on  the  9th,  again  moved  the  amendment  which 
he  had  moved  on  the  27th  of  March  ;  to  which  Mr.  Buchanan 
again  moved  an  amendment  avoiding  the  minimums,  and 
proposing  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  40  per  cent.,  with  5  per  cent, 
additional  duty  annually  until  the  duty  should  reach  50  per 
cent.;  goods  not  exceeding  33 \  cents  a  square  yard,  except 
flannels  and  baizes,  which  were  to  be  charged  30  per  cent., 
with  like  annual  addition  until  the  duty  should  reach  40  per 
cent. 

Mr.  Mallary,  though  not  in  favor  of  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
B.,  yet,  considering  the  bill  with  that  amendment  preferable 
to  the  bill  as  reported,  and  having  little  hope  that  his  own 
would  carry,  accepted  Mr.  B.'s  as  a  modification  of  his  own. 

Mr.  Jngham,  believing  the  prospective  additional  duty 
to  commence  after  the  first  year,  would  induce  an  excessive 
importation  during  the  year,  moved  to  strike  out  the  pro- 
gressive increase. 

This  amendment  was  opposed  by  Messrs.  Storrs,  of  N.  Y., 
Buchanan,  Dwight  and  Bates,  of  Mass.,  Burges,  of  R.  I., 
Whipple,  of  N.  H.,  and  Stewart,  of  Pa.  ;  and  supported  by 
Mr.  Ingham  ;  and  rejected  :  Ayes,  80  ;  noes,  121. 

On  the  10th,  a  motion  by  Mr.  Davis  to  recommit  the  bill, to 
a  Committee  of  the  whole  House,  was  the  order  of  the  day  ; 
to  which  Mr.  Taylor,  of  N.  Y.,  with  a  view  to  confine  the 
discussion  to  a  single  point,  should  the  bill  be  recommitted, 
moved  to  instruct  the  Committee  to  report  as  follows  : 

On  all  manufactured  wool,  40  per  cent,  until  the  30th  of 
June,  1829,  with  5  per  cent,  additional,  annually,  until  the 
duty  shall  amount  to  50  per  cent. 

All  manufactures  of  wool,  or  of  which  wool  is  a  compo- 
nent material,  except  blankets,  carpets  and  carpeting,  worst- 
ed stuff  goods,  bombazines,  hosiery,  caps,  gloves,  mits  and 
bindings,  instead  of  the  present  duty  of  33J  per  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem, 45  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  until  the  30th  of  June,  1829, 
and  thereafter  50  per  cent.  Negatived  :  Ayes,  78  ;  noes,  111. 


1828.J  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  219 

Mr.  Sutherland,  of  Pa.,  moved  an  amendment,  reducing  the 
7  cents  a  pound  specific  duty  in  the  bill  as  first  reported,  to 
4  cents  on,  unmanufactured  wool  ;  and  raising  the  duty  on 
woolen  cloths  under  the  50  cents  minimum,  from  1(5  cents,  as 
reported,  to  20  cents  a  yard  ;  and  establishing  a  new  mini- 
mum of  33  J  cents,  under  which  14  cents  a  square  yard  was 
to  be  charged,  except  on  flannels  and  baizes.  Other  provis- 
ions as  to  woolens  to  remain  as  in  the  bill  reported. 

Mr.  Buchanan  opposed  the  amendment  as  going  back  to 
the  principle  of  minimums. 

Mr.  Wright,  of  N.  Y.,  again  spoke  in  defense  of  the  bill,  as 
being  better  for  the  manufacturers  than  the  amendment  of 
Mallary  as  modified  by  Mr.  Buchanan.  He,  [Mr.  W.]  had 
adopted  the  minimum  principle,  because  the  manufacturers 
had  testified  that  no  reasonable  increase  of  the  ad  valorem  duty 
would  afford  them  any  relief,  and  that  a  specific  square  yard 
duty  would  be  alone  available.  The  Harrisburg  Convention 
also  had  stated  in  their  address  that  it  must  be  adopted  ; 
and  it  had  been  said  in  all  quarters  that  it  was  necessary  to 
prevent  frauds  and  evasions  of  the  duty.  He  expressed  his 
surprise,  that  this  principle  should  now  be  abandoned  for  the 
ad  valorem  duty,  by  the  very  men  who  had  urged  its  adoption. 
The  truth  should  be  avowed  upon  this  subject.  Said  Mr.  W., 
it  is  the  additional  dnty  of  4  cents  a  pound  on  raw  wool 
which,  in  the  minds  of  these  gentlemen,  curses  the  protection 
given  by  this  bill  to  woolen  cloths.  Is  such  to  be  the  decis- 
ion and  determination  of  this  House  ?  Sir,  this  country  does 
and  can  produce  its  wool. 

Mr.  Mallary  replied,  denying  the  conclusions  of  Mr.  Wright, 
and  again  stated  the  reasons  why  he  had  accepted  Mr.  Bu- 
chanan's amendment,  and  why  he  was  opposed  to  that  of 
Mr.  Sutherland. 

The  motion  to  strike  out  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Mallary,  as 
modified  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  and  to  insert  in  lieu  thereof,  the 
amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Sutherland,  was  opposed  by 
Messrs.  Bates,  of  Missouri,  Strong,  of  N.  Y.,  Sterigerc,  of  Pa., 
and  Wright,  of  Ohio  ;  and  further  supported  by  Messrs.  Hoff- 
man, of  N.  Y.,  and  Stevenson,  of  Pa,,  and  adopted  :  Yeas, 
100  ;  nays,  99.  After  several  unsuccessful  attempts  to  amend 
Mr.  Sutherland's  amendment,  the  question  was  at  length  tak- 
en on  Mr.  Mallary's  amendment  as  amended  on  motion  of  Mr. 
Sutherland,  and  decided  in  the  affirmative  :  Yeas,  183  j 
nays,  17. 

So  the  great  question  as  to  the  duty  on  wool  and  woolens, 


THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  rchap.  IX 

which  had  occupied  so  large  a  share  of  the  time  and  attention 
of  the  House,  was  at  length  again  disposed  of  in  that  body. 
A  few  days  were  spent  in  settling  other  details,  when,  on  the 
15th,  the  bill  was  ordered  to  a  third  reading,  109  to  91.  It 
was  read  the  third  time,  the  next  day,  and  the  question  being 
on  its  final  passage, 

Mr.  Randolph  addressed  the  House  at  length  in  opposition 
to  it,  and  moved  its  indefinite  postponement ;  on  which  anoth- 
er debate  sprung  up  which  continued  several  da}rs.  The  mo- 
tion was  supported  by  Messrs.  Bates,  of  Missouri,  Pearce,  of 
R.  L,  (protectionists,)  Cambreleng,  of  N.  Y.,  Mitchell,  M'Duf- 
fie,  Martin,  and  Hamilton,  of  S.  C.,  Alexander,  of  Va.,  Turner, 
of  N.  C.,  Thompson,  of  Ga.  The  speeches  of  nearly  all  of  the 
opponents  of  protection  were  of  great  length,  and  that  of  Mr. 
M'Duffie  highly  denunciatory.  Mr.  Alexander  discussed  the 
constitutionalty  of  the  tariff  system,  denying  the  power  of 
Congress  to  lay  duties  except  for  revenue.  The  friends  of 
the  bill  took  little  or  no  part  in  the  debate.  The  question  on 
its  final  passage  was  taken  on  the  22d  of  April,  and  decided 
in  the  affirmative  :  Yeas,  105  ;  nays,  94,  as  follows  : 

Maine :  Nays,  7.  New  Hampshire  :  Yeas,  4 ;  nays,  2.  Massachusetts  : 
Ye:is,  2;  nays,  11.  Connecticut:  Yeas,  4.;  nays  2.  Rhode  Island:  Yea, 
1  ;  nay  1.  Vermont  :  Yeas,  5.  New  York  :  Yeas,  27 ;  nays,  6.  New  Jer- 
sey .-  Yeas,  5.  Pennsylvania:  Yeas,  23.  Delaware:  yea,  1.  Maryland: 
Ye»,,  1 ;  nays,  5.  Virginia :  Yeas,  3 ;  nays,  15.  North  Carolina:  Nays, 
13.  South "  Carolina  :  Nays,  9.  Georgia  :  'Nays,  7.  Kentucky  :  Yeas,  12. 
Tennessee:  Nays,  9.  Ohio:  Yeas,  13.  Louisiana:  Nays,  3.  Indiana: 
Yesis,  3.  Illinois:  Yea,  1.  Missi^s^pi :  Nay,  1.  Alabama:  Nays,  3. 
Missouri:  Nay.  1. 

Many  of  the  most  ardent  friends  of  the  protective  system, 
voted  with  its  opponents  against  the  bill.  Maine  was  unan- 
imous, and  Massachusetts  nearly  so,  against  it.  Some  op- 
posed it  on  account  of  the  high  duties  on  West  India  goods, 
others  from  their  objections  to  its  provisions  relative  to  wool 
and  woolens.  The  two  States  mentioned,  with  the  planting 
States,  constituted  nearly  all  the  opposition  ;  while  the  agri- 
cultural States  proper,  were  nearly  unanimous  in  favor  of  the 
bill. 

In  the  Senate,  April  24,  the  bill  was  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Manufactures.  It  was  reported  to  the  Senate, 
April  30,  with  sundry  amendments  ;  and  taken  up  for  consid- 
eration, May  5. 

Among  the  amendments  proposed,  were  several  relating  to 
the  duty  on  woolens.  The  provision  requiring  cloth  not  ex- 
ceeding 50  cents  in  value,  to  be  charged  with  a  duty  of  20 


1828.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  221 

cents  per  square  yard,  was  so  altered  as  to  require  that  cloth 
costing  not  over  50  cents  should  be  deemed  to  have  cost  50 
cents,  and  be  charged  with  a  duty  of  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem, 
until  the  30th  of  June,  1829,  and  thereafter  45  per  cent.  But 
the  proviso  that  cloth  costing  33 \  cents,  should  be  charged 
14  cents,  was  retained. 

The  provision  imposing  a  duty  of  40  cents  a  yard  on  cloth 
costing  $1  or  under,  was  so  altered  as  to  require  cloth  over 
50  cents  and  not  over  $1  to  be  deemed  to  have  cost  $1,  and 
to  be  charged  40  per  cent,  and  after  the  30th  of  June,  45 
per  cent. 

Another  minimum  was  adopted,  of  $2  50,  and  one  of  $4,  with 
the  same  ad  valorem  duties  of  40  per  cent.,  to  be  increased  to 
45  per  cent,  in  1829  ;  and  all  cloths  costing  over  $4,  were  to 
be  charged  45  per  cent,  from  the  beginning,  after  June  30th, 
1828. 

The  debate  on  the  bill  in  the  Senate  closed  on  the  13th  of 
May.  few  of  the  speeches  are  reported  at  length  in  the 
"  Register  of  Debates,"  the  Editors  [Gales  and  Seaton]  not 
having1,  as  they  say,  been  able,  from  circumstances  beyond 
their  control,  to  procure  the  remarks  of  all  the  gentlemen 
who  engaged  in  the  debate.  The  views  of  some  of  the  sena- 
tors on  certain  provisions  of  the  bill,  however,  are  given. 

The  high  duty  of  10  cents  a  gallon  on  molasses  found 
Eastern  opponents  in  the  Senate  as  well  as  in  the  House. 

Mr.  Bobbins,  of  R.  I.,  considered  it  unnecessary,  inexpedi- 
ent, and  oppressive,  an  odious  tax  upon  a  necessary  article. 

Mr.  Dickerson,  of  N.  J.,  argued  that  it  would  lead  to  the 
production  of  the  article  in  this  country. 

Mr.  Benton,  of  Missouri,  advocated  the  duty  on  molasses  as 
indirect  encouragement  of  the  landed  or  farming  interest. 
It  would  enable  the  distillers  of  the  Western  country,  who 
used  grains  to  compete  with  those  in  the  Eastern  States,  who 
distilled  from  molasses. 

Mr.  Parris,  of  Maine,  regarded  it  as  far  more  injurious  to 
Maine,  than  it  could  be  beneficial  to  Missouri.  He  gave  some 
details  in  relation  to  the  trade  carried  on  by  his  State  with 
the  West  India  Islands,  and  contended  that  this  duty  would 
act  as  a  death  blow  to  that  trade. 

Mr.  Johnson,  of  Ky.,  defended  the  measure  as  extending  to 
the  West  its  share  of  the  protection.  He  thought  Maine 
would  not  suffer,  as  her  tunnage  would  be  employed  in  carry- 
ing the  molasses  of  Louisiana,  instead  of  that  of  the  West 
Indies. 


222  THE   PROTECTIVE    SYSTEM  [Chap.  IX. 

The  motion  to  strike  out  10  cents,  with  a  view  to  insert 
7J  cents,  was  lost. 

Mr.  Kane,  of  111.,  proposed  a  duty  on  lead,  of  3  cents  a 
pound  ;  on  leaden  shot,  4  cents  ;  on  red  and  white  lead,  5 
cents.  Lead  is  a  production  of  that  State.  It  was  sup- 
ported by  himself  and  Messrs.  Benton,  Dickerson,  and  John- 
son, of  Louisiana. 

Mr.  Rowan,  of  Ky.,  also  opposed  it.  He  was  opposed  to 
the  whole  system.  The  tariff  was  a  system  of  bounties  for 
the  encouragement  of  certain  classes  of  industry.  It  impov- 
erished one  class  of  laborers  to  enrich  another  ;  increased 
the  poverty  of  those  already  poor,  to  enhance  the  wealth  of 
those  already  rich.  He  was  not  opposed  to  the  tariff  as  a 
system  of  revenue,  honestly  devoted  to  that  object.  But 
when  perverted  by  the  ambition  of  political  aspirants,  and 
the  secret  influence  of  inordinate  cupidity,  to  purposes  of  in- 
dividual and  sectional  ascendancy,  he  could  not  be  seduced 
by  the  captivation  of  names  or  terms,  however  attractive,  to 
lend  it  his  support.  He  was,  he  said,  one  of  the  organs  of  a 
State  that  had,  by  the  tariff  of  1824,  been  chained  to  the  car 
of  the  Eastern  manufacturers  ;  and  seeing  no  hope  of  escap- 
ing from  the  ills  of  the  system,  she  is  constrained,  on  princi- 
ples of  self-defense,  to  avail  herself  of  the  mitigation  which 
this  bill  presents,  in  the  duties  which  it  imposes  on  hemp, 
spirits,  iron  and  molasses.  The  hemp,  iron,  and  distilled 
spirits  of  the  West,  will,  like  the  woolens  of  the  Eastern 
States,  be  encouraged  to  the  extent  of  the  tax  indirectly  im- 
posed by  this  bill  upon  those  who  shall  buy  and  consume 
them.  Those  who  may  need  and  buy  those  articles,  must  pay 
to  the  grower  or  manufacturer  of  them,  an  increased  price  to 
the  amount  of  the  duties  imposed  upon  the  like  articles  of 
foreign  growth  or  fabric.  To  this  tax  upon  the  labor  of  the 
consumer,  his  individual  opinion  was  opposed.  But  as  the 
organ  of  the  State  of  Kentucky,  he  felt  himself  bound  to  sur- 
render his  individual  opinion,  and  express  the  opinion  of  his 
State. 

Mr.  R.  said  he  must,  therefore,  as  the  humble  organ  of  the 
people  of  his  State,  vote  for  this  bill ;  and  would,  on  the  same 
principle,  vote  for  this  duty  on  lead,  if  he  could  do  it  without 
disparaging  his  Government.  The  mines  of  lead,  with  the 
exception  of  a  few  Spanish  grants,  which  he  had  been  told 
were  nearly  exhausted,  1  elonged  to  the  United  States.  To 
suppose  that  the  Government  to  whose  strength  we  all  look 
for  protection  is  so  v  cak  as  to  need  protection  against  foreign 


1828.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  223 

competition  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  this  vulgar  metal, 
was  not  very  respectful  to  the  Government.  He  might  be 
told  that  the'Government  leases  its  mines,  and  that  the  lessees, 
and  not  the  Government,  would  be  benefited  by  the  duty. 
His  reply  was,  that  when  you  raise  the  price  of  lead,  you 
raise  rents.  The  competition  between  the  lessees  would  ne- 
cessarily produce  this  result ;  and  thus,  while  the  consumers 
of  this  necessary  article  would  be  taxed,  the  manufacturer  of 
it  would  not  be  benefited.  The  tax  would  go  to  the  Govern- 
ment, and  not  to  them.  He  had  not  attempted  to  depict  the 
evils  which  had  been  inflicted  upon  the  Western  and  South- 
ern States  by  this  new  system — a  system  peculiar  to  aristo- 
crats and  monarchists — kinds  of  Government  to  which  it 
naturally  led,  and  to  the  support  of  which  it  was  as  natural 
and  necessary,  as  it  was  alien  from  and  abhorred  by  repub- 
lics. 

The  amendment  proposing  the  duty  on  lead  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Parris,  of  Maine,  on  a  subsequent  day,  again  depre- 
cated the  effect  of  the  bill  upon  the  trade  of  the  country. 
There  are,  he  said,  various  items  in  it  calculated  to  produce 
these  effects.  Such  is  the  increased  duty  on  molasses,  bear- 
ing on  the  West  India  trade.  Such  is  the  increased  duty  on 
hemp  and  iron,  bearing  on  the  trade  in  the  Baltic.  If  we 
would  sell,  we  must  buy  ;  if  we  would  export,  we  must  im- 
port ;  and  if,  by  increased  duties  or  otherwise,  we  diminish 
imports,  we  thereby  diminish  exports.  The  effect  of  the  in- 
creased duty  on  molasses  will  be  to  diminish  its  importation, 
and  to  make  way  for  the  molasses  of  the  Southern,  and  tho 
whisky  of  the  Middle  and  Western  States.  Who  then  will 
buy  our  lumber  and  our  fish,  and  the  various  commodities 
which  we  now  exchange  for  that  article  ?  The  Islanders 
will  not,  unless  we  take  their  molasses  in  payment. 

Mr.  P.  spoke  of  the  extent  of  the  trade  with  those  Islands. 
From  Cuba  alone,  we  had  imported  molasses,  coffee,  and 
sugar,  in  one  year,  to  the  value  of  more  than  $3,000,000. 
During  the  same  period,  we  shipped  to  Cuba  our  own  pro- 
duce, our  lumber,  fish,  oil,  naval  stores,  beef,  pork,  flour,  rice, 
&c.,  to  the  value  of  upwards  of  $3,700,000.  We  also  sup- 
plied them  with  articles  from  England,  France,  Eussia,  South 
America,  and  other  places,  received  in  exchange  for  our  pro- 
duce, valued  here  at  upwards  of  $2,382,000.  The  amount  of 
American  tunnage  employed  in  this  trade  exceeds  122,000 
tuns.  We  import  from  Russia  to  the  amount  of  $2,600,000 
annually,  as  valued  at  her  ports,  principally  in  iron  and  hemp, 


224  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX. 

and  the  manufactures  of  hemp  and  flax  ;  arid  we  pay  for  them 
principally  in  the  coffee,  the  sugar,  and  the  commodities 
which  we  import  from  the  West  Indies  :  so  that  the  iron, 
the  hemp,  and  the  duck  which  we  import  from  Russia,  is  the 
ultimate  product  of  the  labor  of  our  lumbermen,  fishermen, 
and  sailors. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  P.,  this  bill  will  bear  with  severity  upon  the 
shipping  interest  of  the  State  with  which  I  am  officially  con- 
n'ected.  She  owns  174,000  tuns  of  shipping.  Every  hundred 
tuns  of  vessel  require  four  tuns  of  hemp,  and  something  ex- 
ceeding that  quantity  of  iron.  To  construct  the  amount  of 
tunnage  owned  in  Maine,  would  therefore  require  nearly 
7,000  tuns  of  hemp,  and  the  like  quantity  of  iron.  The  bare 
duties  as  contemplated  by  this  bill,  that  must  be  paid  into 
the  Treasury  upon  this  quantity  of  hemp,  would  amount  to 
$419,280  ;  and  upon  iron,  to  $157,230.  About  one-tenth  of 
the  tunnage  of  the  country  is  annually  lost  by  decay  or  ma- 
rine casualties.  To  construct  this  new  supply  in  the  State 
of  Maine,  requires  700  tuns  of  iron,  the  duties  on  which,  by 
this  bill,  would  be  $15,750.  The  manufactures  of  hemp  that 
are  put  upon  a  ship,  must  be  replaced  once  in  four  years,  in 
consequence  of  decay  and  losses  at  sea.  This  requires 
1,747  tuns  of  hemp  annually,  the  duties  on  which  would  be 
$104,820,  making  an  aggregate  of  $120,570  tax  on  the  ship 
owners  of  Maine  on  these  two  articles. 

The  origin  of  this  great  system  has  been  repeatedly 
charged  upon  the  Eastern  or  New  England  States  ;  and  as 
New  England  projected  the  measure  and  got  up  the  excite- 
ment, she  must  pay  for  it ;  the  bill  must  be  so  modified  as  to 
bear  adversely  upon  her  interests,  and  be  carried  at  her  ex- 
pense. I  deny  that  we  are  answerable  for  its  origin  or  its 
progress.  When  this  doctrine  of  protection  was  first  ad- 
vanced, in  no  part  of  the  Union  did  it  find  more  zealous  advo- 
cates than  in  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey.  I  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  Senate,  particularly  the  Senators  from  Penn- 
83'lvania,  to  what  has  been  done  in  that  State.  Who  origi- 
nated the  Convention  at  Harrisburg,  to  which  this  measure 
is  to  be  directly  traced,  and  which  has,  in  the  course  of  this 
debate,  been  eulogized  as  "  the  most  enlightened  body  that 
were  ever  assembled  in  this  country?"  It  was  the  "Penn- 
sylvania Society  for  the  promotion  of  Manufactures  and  the 
Mechanic  Arts."  I  will  not  mention  names,  but  will  merely 
point  the  attention  of  gentlemen  to  a  single  individual  in 
Philadelphia,*  who  has  been  laboring  wilh  ability  on  this 

*  Matthew  Carey,  probablj. 


1828.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  225 

subject  for  years,  and  who  has  done  more  with  his  pen  to 
promote  what  is  called  the  "  American  System,"  than  has 
been  done  by  any  individual  or  association  in  either  or  all  of 
the  Eastern  States.  Proceeding  further  6outh,  to  Maryland, 
and  what  has  been  done  there  ?  The  pen  and  the  press  in 
the  hands  of  an  able  and  distinguished  Editor*  in  the  city 
of  Baltimore,  have  probably  accomplished  more  than  in  all 
the  other  cities  in  the  Union.  These  men  may  well  be  called 
the  fathers  of  the  system. 

Mr.  Dickerson,  of  N.  J.,  said  he  did  not  deny  the  people  of 
Maine  the  merit  of  great  enterprise  and  industry  ;  but  their 
commercial  prosperity  had  chiefly  arisen  out  of  the  discrimi- 
nations in  favor  of  American  tunnage,  and  the  protection  to 
the  fisheries.  The  gentleman's  calculations  as  to  iron  were 
not  correct.  The  duty  on  foreign  iron  had  obliged  the  im- 
porter to  reduce  the  price  of  his  iron,  or  to  be  driven  out  of 
the  market  by  the  domestic  manufacturer. 

Mr.  Smith,  of  Md.,  said  the  prosperity  of  the  ship  owners 
of  Maine  did  not  arise  from  discriminating  duties.  The  mer- 
chants themselves,  when  they  found  they  could  do  without 
it,  came  forward  and  said  they  could  dispense  with  the  dis- 
crimination. They  knew  that,  with  any  thing  like  equality, 
they  could  compete  with  any  nation.  But,  he  said,  the  fish- 
eries also  had  contributed  to  this  prosperity.  The  bounty  is 
not  any  advantage  to  the  fishermen  ;  its  operation  is  upon 
the  consumption  of  salt ;  and  when  the  duty  upon  that  arti- 
cle has  been  taken  off,  the  bounty  has  been  removed  also.  It 
is  said  that  duty  reduces  the  price  of  iron  ;  but  it  is  erroneous. 
Other  causes  have  operated.  The  railroads  in  England,  and 
water  instead  of  land  carriage  in  Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Nor- 
way ;  these  are  the  causes  of  the  fall  in  the  price  of  iron, 
and  not  the  moderation  of  the  domestic  manufacturer. 

Mr.  Parris  considered  that  our  commercial  prosperity  grew 
up  from  the  wars  in  Europe,  and  the  advantage  enjoyed  by 
us  in  the  carrying  trade.  But  the  very  first  step  taken  after 
peace  was  to  open  our  ports  to  all  nations  on  their  recipro- 
cating the  privilege.  England,  France,  and  other  countries, 
accepted  these  terms.  I  do  not  complain  of  this,  because  we 
can  compete  with  any  country  on  fair  and  equal  terms.  But 
I  do  complain,  that,  at  that  very  time,  the  tax  on  iron  was 
brought  up  to  $18  a  tun,  and  that  on  hemp  to  $35.  Thus, 
while  we  were  exposed  to  the  competition  of  other  countries, 

*  Hezekinh  Niles. 
10* 


226  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  ^Chap.  IX. 

by  the  repeal  of  the  discriminating  duties  on  tunnage,  a  bur- 
then was  inflicted  on  our  commerce  by  increasing  the  price  of 
the  articles  used  in  the  building  of  ships. 

Mr.  Hayne,  of  S.  «C.,  sympathized  with  the  gentleman  from 
Maine  in  the  oppression  which  the  bill  threatened  to  inflict 
on  that  State  ;  and  the  burthens  should  not  be  imposed  with 
his  consent.  I  have,  said  Mr.  H.,  formerly  expressed  my 
opinion  as  to  the  operation  of  this  system  upon  the  South. 
I  know  that  it  is  ruinous,  partial,  unjust.  I  agree  with  the 
gentleman,  that,  unless  we  come  back  to  the  sound  principles 
which  have  been  so  long  abandoned,  the  harmony,  the  peace, 
and  the  prosperity  of  the  Union  are  endangered.  In  every 
view,  this  system  is  one  of  doubtful  character.  I  ask  of  any 
gentleman  who  now  advocates  this  bill,  to  turn  to  the  act  of 
1824,  and  put  his  finger  on  one  single  item  of  the  bill  which 
has  benefited  the  South.  I  will  further  ask  you  to  look  at 
the  bill  on  your  table,  and  show  me  the  item,  except  molas- 
ses, in  which  the  South  is  now  interested.  Not  a  provision 
holds  out  a  shadow  of  a  benefit  to  us,  whilst,  according  to  the 
calculation  of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  the  States 
interested  in  the  articles  to  be  protected  by  this  bill,  would 
derive  advantages  frjm  it  equal  to  4  millions  of  "dollars. 
From  a  calculation  which  I  have  seen  on  the  subject,  I  be- 
lieve that  the  burthens  imposed  by  the  bill  on  those  who 
were  to  bear  them,  did  not  fall  short  of  that  amount. 

Mr.  Foot,  of  Conn.,  moved  to  amend  the  bill  by  striking 
out  the  third  section,  which  relates  to  hemp,  flax,  duck,  cot- 
ton bagging,  molasses,  and  distilled  spirits.  He  said  that  ho 
believed  the  duty  on  every  article  in  that  section  bore  very 
hard  upon  the  commercial  interest,  and  would  have  a  highly 
injurious  effect  on  the  commerce  of  New  England.  The  charge 
had  been  made,  that  the  excitement  in  relation  to  this  meas- 
ure had  been  produced  by  New  England.  He  was  surprised, 
yesterday,  to  hear  a  gentleman  from  North  Carolina  propose 
to  give  New  England  a  dose  of  medicine  ;  which,  at  least, 
was  not  over  courteous.  But  a  remark  had  fallen  from  the 
gentleman  from  Missouri,  [Mr.  Benton,]  to  which  we  are  not 
entitled.  He  says  New  England  originated  these  tariff  bills, 
and  we  must  not  complain.  This  is  not  the  case.  Mr.  F. 
said  he  was  averse  to  this  section  of  the  bill  particularly.  It 
laid  heavy  duties  upon  articles  essential  to  ship  building.  On 
hemp,  flax,  and  duck,  tin-  duties  were  exorbitant.  ;  but,  of  all 
the  duties  in  all  tin-  tariff  bills  ever  passed,  he  considered  the 
duty  on  molasses  the  most  offensive.  It  was  an  article  of 
necessity  that  ought  not  to  be  taxed. 


1628.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  227 

Having  already  devoted  so  much  space  to  the  discussion 
of  this  bill  in  the  two  Houses,  it  was  our  purpose  to  add  only 
the  final  vote  of  the  Senate  upon  the  bill.  But  as  Mr.  Web- 
ster's speech  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Foot  throws  upon  the  sub- 
ject in  general  much  additional  light  which  is  deemed  neces- 
sary to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  question  ;  we  copy 
from  the  reported  speech  a  few  paragraphs  : 

Mr.  Webster  said  :  This  subject  is  surrounded  with  em- 
barrassments. A  diversity  of  interest  exists,  or  is  supposed 
to  exist,  in  different  parts  of  the  country.  Different  opinions 
are  entertained  as  to  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress. 
And  then,  again,  different  members  of  the  Senate  have  in- 
structions which  they  feel  bound  to  obey,  and  which  clash 
with  one  another.  Those  who  intend  to  oppose  this  bill  un- 
der all  circumstances,  and  in  all  forms,  care  not  how  ob- 
jectionable it  now  is,  or  how  bad  it  may  be  made.  Others, 
finding  their  own  leading  objects  secured  by  it,  naturally 
enough  press  forward,  without  staying  to  consider  how  inju- 
riously other  interests  may  be  affected.  All  these  causes  cre- 
ate embarrassments,  and  inspire  just  fears  that  a  wise  and 
useful  result  is  hardly  to  be  expected. 

I  have  not  had  the  slightest  wish  to  discuss  the  measure  ; 
not  believing  that,  in  the  present  state  of  things,  any  good 
could  be  done  by  me  in  that  way.  But  the  frequent  declarations 
that  this  was  altogether  a  New  England  measure,  a  bill  for  se- 
curing a  monopoly  to  the  capitalists  of  the  North,  and  other  ex- 
pressions of  a  similar  nature,  have  induced  me  to  say  a  few 
words.  New  England,  sir,  has  not  been  a  leader  in  this  pol- 
icy. On  .the  contrary,  she  held  back,  herself,  and  tried  to 
hold  others  back  from  it,  from  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
tion to  1824.  Up  to  1824,  she  was  accused  of  sinister  and 
selfish  designs,  because  she  discountenanced  the  progress  of 
this  policy.  It  was  laid  to  her  charge,  then,  that  having  es- 
tablished her  manufactures  herself,  she  wished  that  others 
should  not  have  the  power  of  rivaling  her.  Under  this  an- 
gry denunciation  against  her,  the  act  of  1824  passed.  Now 
the  imputation  is  of  an  opposite  character.  The  present 
measure  is  pronounced  to  be  exclusively  for  the  benefit  of 
New  England  ;  to  be  brought  forward  by  her  agency,  and 
designed  to  gratify  the  cupidity  of  her  wealthy  establish- 
ments. 

Both  charges  are  equally  without  foundation.  The  opin- 
ion of  New  England,  up  to  1824,  was  founded  upon  the  con- 
viction, 'that,  on  the  whole,  it  was  wisest  and  best,  both  for 


228  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX 

herself  and  others,  that  manufactures  should  "  make  haste 
slowly.'7  She  felt  a  reluctance  to  trust  great  interests  on  the 
foundation  of  Government  patronage  ;  for  who  could  tell  how 
long  such  patronage  would  last ;  with  what  steadiness, 
skill,  or  perseverance,  it  would  continue  to  be  granted  ? 

At  the  same  time  it  is  true,  that,  from  the  very  first  com- 
mencement of  the  Government,  those  who  have  administered 
its  concerns  have  held  a  tone  of  encouragement  toward  those 
who  should  embark  in  manufactures.  All  the  Presidents,  I 
believe,  have  concurred  in  this  general  sentiment ;  and  the 
very  first  act  of  Congress  laying  duties  of  impost,  adopted 
the  then  unusual  expedient  of  a  preamble,  apparently  for 
little  other  purpose  than  that  of  declaring  that  the  duties 
which  it  imposed  were  imposed  for  the  encouragement  and 
protection  of  manufactures.  When,  at  the  commencement  of 
the  late  war,  dutes  were  doubled,  we  were  told  that  we 
should  find  a  mitigation  of  the  weight  of  taxation  in  the  new 
aid  and  succor  which  would  be  thus  afforded  to  our  own  man- 
ufacturing labor.  Like  arguments  were  urged,  and  prevailed, 
but  not  by  the  aid  of  New  England  votes,  when  the  tariff  was 
afterwards  arranged  at  the  close  of  the  war,  in  1816.  Finally, 
after  a  whole  winter's  deliberation,  the  act  of  1824  received 
the  sanction  of  both  Houses  of  Congress,  and  settled  the 
policy  of  the  country.  What,  then,  was  New  England  to  do  ? 
Nothing  but  to  conform  herself  to  the  will  of  others.  Was 
she  to  deny  herself  the  use  of  her  advantages,  natural  and 
acquired  ?  Was  she  longer  to  resist  what  she  could  no 
longer  .prevent  ?  As  a  consequence  of  the  act  of  1824,  a 
large  increase  of  investment  was  made  in  manufacturing  es- 
tablishments. 

As  a  general  remark,  it  may  be  said,  that  the  interests 
concerned  in  the  act  of  1824,  did  not  complain  of  their  condi- 
tion under  it,  excepting  only  those  connected  with  the  wool- 
en manufactures.  These  did  complain  ;  not  so  much  of  the 
act  itself,  as  of  a  new  state  of  circumstances,  unforeseen 
when  the  act  was  passed,  but  which  had  now  arisen  to 
thwart  its  beneficial  operations,  as  to  them. 

Three  causes  have  been  generally  stated  as  having  pro- 
duced the  disappointment  experienced  by  the  manufacturers 
of  wool,  under  the  law  of  1824. 

First,  it  is  alleged,  that  the  price  of  the  raw  material  has 
been  laised  too  high  by  the  act  itself.  This  point  was  dis- 
cussed at  the  time  ;  and  though  opinions  varied,  the  result 
was  not  entirely  foreseen. 


1828.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  229 

But,  secondly,  the  manufacturers  imputed  their  disappoint- 
ment to  a  reduction  of  the  price  of  wool  in  England  which 
took  place  just  about  the  date  of  the  law  of  1824.  The  duty 
was  lowered  from  sixpence  sterling  to  one  penny  per  pound. 
The  effect  of  this  is  obvious  enough.  Great  Britain,  as  is 
clearly  proved,  did  not  reduce  the  duty  on  wool,  because  of 
our  act  of  1824,  but  the  effect  of  the  reduction  was  the  same 
as  if  it  had  been  intended  to  operate  on  our  manufactures. 

In  the  last  place,  it  was  alleged  by  the  manufacturers,  that 
they  suffered  from  the  mode  of  collecting  the  duties  at  the 
custom-houses.  It  is  alleged,  that,  in  the  largest  importing 
city  in  the  Union,  a  great  proportion  of  the  woolen  fabrics  is 
imported  on  foreign  accounts.  And  it  is  stated,  that  the  in- 
voices of  such  foreign  importers  are  generally  found  to  be 
lower  than  those  of  the  American  importer. 

Under  this  state  of  things,  the  law  contemplated  at  the 
last  session  was  proposed.  It  was  confined,  as  I  thought 
properly,  to  wool  and  woolens.  It  took  up  the  great  and 
leading  subject  of  complaint,  and  nothing  else.  The  bill  now 
before  us  is  of  a  very  different  description.  It  proposes  to 
raise  duties  on  various  other  articles  besides  wool  and  wool- 
ens. It  contains  some  provisions  which  bear,  with  unneces- 
sary severity,  on  the  whole  community  ;  others  which  affect, 
with  peculiar  hardship,  particular  interests  ;  while  both  of 
them  benefit  nobody  and  nothing  but  the  treasury.  It  con- 
tains provisions  which,  with  whatever  motive  put  into  it,  it 
is  confessed  are  now  kept  in  for  the  very  purpose  of  destroy- 
ing the  bill  altogether  ;  or,  with  the  intent  to  compel  those 
who  expect  to  derive  benefit,  to  feel  the  smart  from  it 
also.  Probably  such  a  motive  of  action  has  not  often  been 
avowed. 

The  wool  manufacturers  happen  to  live,  principally,  at  the 
North  and  East ;  and  in  a  bill  professing  to  be  for  their  relief, 
other  provisions  are  found  which  are  supposed,  (arid  sup 
ported  because  they  are  supposed,)  to  be  such  as  will  press, 
with  peculiar  hardship,  on  that  quarter  of  the  country.  Sir, 
what  can  be  expected  but  evil  when  such  a  temper  prevails  ? 
How  can  such  a  hostile  retaliatory  legislation  be  reconciled 
to  common  justice  or  common  prudence  ?  Nay,  sir,  this  rule 
of  action  seems  carried  still  further.  Not  only  are  clauses 
found  and  continued  in  the  bill  which  oppress  particular  in- 
terests, but  taxes  are  laid  which  will  be  severely  felt  by  the 
whole  Union  ;  and  this,  too,  with  the  same  design,  and  for 
the  same  end  before  mentioned,  of  causing  the  smart  of  the 


230  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX. 

bill  to  be  felt.  Of  this  description  is  the  molasses  tax  ;  a 
tax,  in  my  opinion,  absurd  and  preposterous  in  relation  to 
any  object  of  protection  ;  needlessly  oppressive  to  the  whole 
community  ;  and  benefiting  nobody  on  earth  but  the  treasury. 
And  yet  here  it  is,  and  here  it  is  kept,  under  an  idea  con- 
ceived in  ignorance,  and  cherished  for  a  short-lived  triumph, 
that  New  England  will  be  deterred,  by  this  tax,  from  protect- 
ing her  extensive  woolen  manufactures  ;  or,  if  not,  that  the 
authors  of  this  policy  may  at  least  have  the  pleasure,  the 
high  pleasure,  of  perceiving  that  she  feels  the  effect  of  this 
bill. 

Sir,  let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  this  tax.  The  molasses 
imported  into  the  United  States  amount  to  13,000,000  gal- 
lons annually.  Of  this  quantity,  not  more  than  3,000,000  are 
distilled  ;  the  remaining  10,000,000  being  consumed  as  an 
article  of  wholesome  food.  The  proposed  tax  is  not  to  be 
laid  for  revenue.  This  is  not  pretended.  It  was  not  intro- 
duced for  the  benefit  of  the  sugar  planters.  They  are  con- 
tented with  their  present  condition,  and  have  applied  for 
nothing.  What,  then,  was  the  object  ?  The  original  pro- 
fessed object  was  to  increase,  by  this  new  duty  on  molasses, 
the  consumption  of  spirits  distilled  from  grain.  This,  I  say, 
was  the  object  originally  professed.  But  in  this  point  of 
view,  the  measure  appears  to  me  to  be  preposterous.  It  is 
monstrous,  and  out  of  all  proportion  and  relation  of  means 
to  ends.  It  proposes  to  double  the  duty  on  the  10,000,000 
gallons  of  molasses  which  are  consumed  for  food,  in  order 
that  it  may  likewise  double  the  duty  on  the  3,000,000  which 
are  distilled  into  spirits  ;  and  all  this  for  the  contingent  and 
doubtful  purpose  of  augmenting  the  consumption  of  spirits 
distilled  from  grain.  I  say  contingent  and  doubtful  purpose, 
because  I  do  not  believe  any  such  effect  will  be  produced.  I 
do  not  think  a  hundred  gallons  more  of  spirits  distilled  from 
grain  will  find  a  market  in  consequence  of  this  tax  on  molas- 
ses. But  suppose  some  slight  effect  of  that  kind  should  be 
produced  ;  is  it  so  desirable  an  object  as  that  it  should  be 
sought  by  such  means  ?  Shall  we  tax  food  to  encourage  in- 
temperance ?  Sir,  the  bare  statement  of  this  question  puts 
it  beyond  the  reach  of  all  argument.  No  man  will  seriously 
undertake  the  defense  of  such  a  tax.  It  is  better,  much  more 
candid,  certainly  to  admit,  us  lias  been  admitted,  that  obnox- 
ious as  it  is,  and  abominable  as  it  is,  it  is  kept  in  the  bill 
with  a  special  view  to  its  effects  on  New  England  votes  and 
New  England  interests. 


1829]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  231 

The  increased  duty  on  molasses,  while  it  needlessly  and 
•wantonly  enhances  the  price  to  the  consumer,  may  affect  also 
the  importation  of  that  article,  and  be  thus  injurious  to  com- 
merce. The  importation  of  molasses  in  exchange  for  lumber, 
provisions,  and  other  articles  of  our  own  production  is  one  of 
the  largest  portions  of  our  West  India  trade.  The  exports 
which  sustain  it  are  from  the  East,  the  South,  and  the  West 
— every  part  of  the  country  having  thus  an  interest  in  its 
continuance  and  extension.  A  market  for  these  exports,  to 
any  of  these  portions  of  the  country,  is  of  infinitely  more  im- 
portance to  it  than  all  the  benefit  to  be  expected  from  the 
supposed  increased  consumption  of  spirits  distilled  from 
grain. 

Yes,  sir,  this  tax  is  to  be  kept  in  the  bill  that  New  Eng- 
land may  be  made  to  feel.  Gentlemen  who  hold  it  to  be 
wholly  unconstitutional  to  lay  any  tax  whatever  for  the  pur- 
poses intended  by  this  bill,  yet  cordially  vote  for  this  tax. 
An  honorable  gentleman  from  Maryland  [Mr.  Smith]  calls 
the  whole  bill  a  "  bill  of  abominations."  This  tax,  he  agrees, 
is  one  of  its  abominations  ;  yet  he  votes  for  it.  Both  the  gen- 
tlemen from  North  Carolina  have  signified  their  dissatisfac- 
tion with  the  bill  ;  yet  they  have  both  voted  to  double  the 
tax  on  molasses.  Do  gentlemen  flatter  themselves  that  this 
course  of  policy  can  answer  their  purposes  ?  Against  New 
England,  depend  on  it,  nothing  will  be  gained  by  intimida- 
tion. If  you  propose  to  suffer  yourselves,  in  order  that  sh6 
may  suffer  also,  she  will  bid  you  come  on — she  will  meet 
challenge  with  challenge — she  will  invite  you  to  do  your 
worst  and  your  best,  and  to  see  who  will  hold  out  longest. 
She  has  offered  you  every  one  of  her  votes  in  the  Senate  to 
strike  out  this  tax  on  molasses.  You  have  refused  to  join 
her  and  to  strike  it  out.  With  the  aid  of  the  votes  of  any 
one  Southern  State,  for  example,  of  North  Carolina,  it  could 
have  been  struck  out.  But  North  Carolina  has  refused  her 
votes  for  this  purpose.  She  has  voted  to  keep  this  tax  in, 
and  to  keep  it  in  at  the  highest  rate.  And  yet,  sir,  North 
Carolina,  whatever  she  may  think  of  it,  is  fully  as  much  in- 
terested in  this  tax  as  Massachusetts.  This  increase  of  the 
duty  will  levy  on  her  citizens  a  new  tax  of  $56,000  a  year,  or 
more,  although  her  Representatives  on  this  floor  have  so 
often  told  us  that  the  people  are  now  poor,  and  already  borne 
down  with  taxes. 

I  advert  once  more  to  the  subject  of  wool  and  woolens,  for 
the  purpose  of  showing,  that  even  in  respect  to  that  part  of 


232  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM  Chap.  IX. 

the  bill,  the  interest  mainly  protected  is  not  that  of  the  manu- 
facturers. On  the  contrary,  it  is  that  of  the  wool  growers. 
The  wool  grower  is  vastly  more  benefited  than  the  manufac- 
turer. Just  so  much,  and  no  more,  is  done  for  the  manufac- 
turer, as  is  supposed  necessary  to  enable  him  to  purchase  and 
manufacture  the  wool.  The  agriculturist,  the  farming  inter- 
est, the  interest  of  the  sheep  owner,  is  the  great  object  which 
the  bill  is  calculated  to  benefit,  and  which  it  will  benefit,  if 
the  manufactures  can  be  kept  alive.  A  comparison  of  exist- 
ing  duties  with  those  proposed  on  the  wool  and  on  the  cloth, 
will  show  how  this  part  of  the  case  stands. 

At  present  a  duty  of  30  per  cent,  is  laid  on  all  wool  costing 
10  cents  a  pound,  and  upwards  ;  and  a  duty  of  15  per  cent,  on 
all  wool  under  that  price.  The  present  bill  proposes  a  spe- 
cific duty  of  4  cents  per  pound,  and  also  an  ad  valorem  duty 
of  50  per  cent.,  on  all  wool  of  every  description.  The  result 
of  the  combination  of  these  two  duties  is,  that  wool  fit  for 
making  good  cloths,  and  costing  from  30  to  40  cents  per  pound 
in  the  foreign  market,  will  pay  a  duty  at  least  equal  to  60 
per  cent.  And  wool  costing  less  than  10  cents  will  pay  a 
duty,  on  an  average,  of  100  per  cent.  Now,  sir,  these  heavy 
duties  are  laid  for  the  wool  grower.  They  are  designed  to 
give  a  spring  to  agriculture,  by  fostering  one  of  its  most  im- 
portant products. 

But  let  us  see  what  is  done  for  the  manufacturer  to  enable 
iim  to  manufacture  the  raw  material  at  prices  so  much  en- 
Lanced.  As  the  bill  passed  the  House  of  Eepresentatives, 
the  advance  of  duties  on  cloths  is  supposed  to  have  been  not 
more  than  3  per  cent,  on  the  minimum  points.  Amendments 
here  adopted  have  enhanced  this  duty,  and  are  understood  to 
have  carried  it  up  to  45,  or  perhaps  50  per  cent.  Taking  it 
at  the  highest,  the  duty  on  cloth  is  raised  13  per  cent.,  while 
that  on  wool  is  raised  in  some  instances  30,  and  in  some  in- 
stances 85  per  cent.  ;  that  is,  in  one  case  from  30  to  60  per 
cent.,  and  in  the  other,  from  15  to  100  per  cent. 

Now,  the  calculation  is  said  to  be  true  which  supposes 
that  a  duty  of  30  per  cent,  on  the  raw  material,  enhances,  by 
15  per  cont.,  the  cost  of  producing  the  cloth  ;  the  raw  mate- 
rial being  estimated  generally  to  be  equal  to  half  the  ex- 
pense of  the  fabric.  So  that,  while  by  this  bill  the  manufac- 
turer gains  13  per  cent,  on  the  cloth,  he  would  appear  to  lose 
15  per  cent,  on  the  same  cloth,  by  the  increase  of  the  price 
of  the  wool.  And  this  would  not  only  appear  to  be  true,  but 
would,  I  suppose,  be  actually  true,  were  it  not  that  the  mar- 


1828.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  233 

ket  may  be  open  to  the  manufacturer,  under  this  bill,  for 
such  cloths  as  may  be  furnished  at  prices  intermediate  be- 
tween the  graduated  prices  established  by  the  bill. 

For  example  :  Few  or  no  foreign  cloths,  it  is  supposed, 
costing  more  than  50  cents  a  yard  and  less  than  $1,  will  be 
imported  ;  therefore  American  cloths  of  this  quality  will  find 
a  market.  So  of  the  intervals  or  intermediate  spaces  be- 
tween the  other  statute  prices.  In  this  mode,  it  may  be 
hoped,  that  the  manufacturers  may  be  sustained  and  rendered 
able  to  carry  on  the  work  of  converting  the  raw  material 
into  an  article  necessary  and  fit  for  use.  And  this  statement, 
I  think,  sufficiently  shows  that  no  further  benefit  is  intended 
for  them,  than  such  as  shall  barely  enable  them  to  accomplish 
that  purpose  ;  and  that  the  object  to  which  all  others  have 
been  made  to  yield,  is  the  advantage  of  agriculture.  And 
yet  a  loud  and  ceaseless  cry  has  been  raised  against  what  is 
called  the  cupidity,  the  avarice,  the  monopolizing  spirit  of 
New  England  manufacturers.  This  is  one  of  the  main 
"  abominations  of  the  bill  ;"  to  remedy  which,  it  is  proposed 
to  keep  in  the  other  abominations. 

I  am  decidedly  in  favor  of  a  measure  which  shall  uphold 
and  support,  in  behalf  of  the  manufacturers,  the  law  of  1824, 
and  carry  its  benefits  to  the  full  extent  intended.  And  al- 
though I  arn  not  altogether  satisfied  with  the  particular  form 
of  these  enactments,  I  am  willing  to  take,  them,  in  the  belief 
that  they  will  answer  an  essentially  important  purpose. 

Mr.  Webster  also  spoke  against  what  he  called  an  "  objec- 
tionable and  unreasonable  augmentation  of  the  duty  on  hemp  ;" 
which,  under  the  act  of  1824,  was  $35  a  tun,  and  was  in  the 
present  bill  put  at  $45  with  a  progressive  increase  to  $60. 
This,  he  said,  would  be  absolutely  oppressive  on  the  shipping 
interest,  the.  great  consumers  of  the  article.  He  concluded 
by  submitting  the  following  as  a  substitute  for  the  provision 
in  the  bill,  relative  to  hemp  : 

"  That  the  Navy  department  be  directed  to  purchase,  for 
the  use  of  the  Navy  of  the  United  States,  American  water 
rotted  hemp,  when  it  can  be  procured  of  a  suitable  quality, 
and  at  a  price  not  exceeding  by  more  than  twenty  per  cent., 
the  price  of  the  imported  article." 

Mr.  Johnson,  of  Kentucky,  said  his  constituents  would  be 
astonished  at  this  motion,  and  especially  at  the  quarter  from 
which  it  comes.  It  is,  said  he,  a  proposition  from  an  avowed 
and  leading  advocate  of  the  "American  system,"  as  it  is  so 
plausibly  called,  to  take  off  the  duty  from  hemp,  cotton  bag- 


234  THE   PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  IX. 

ging,  molasses,  and  foreign  distilled  spirits.  If  these  arti- 
cles are  exempted  from  duty,  what  remaining  interest  has 
the  West  in  this  long  expected  tariff  ?  A  tariff  founded  in 
equity,  extending  equally  its  benefits  to  all  parts  of  the 
Union,  will  be  favorably  received  at  the  West.  But  a  par- 
tial system,  a  sectional  system,  a  mere  woolen  system,  will 
receive  the  support  of  no  party  there.  We  would  not  receive 
a  partial  favor,  if  tendered  us  at  the  expense  of  the  East ;  nor 
can  we  sacrifice  to  that  section  the  dearest  interests  of  the 
West.  Mr.  J.  spoke  at  considerable  length  in  support  of  the 
claims  of  the  West  to  protection. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Foot  to  strike  out  the  third  section  of 
the  bill  was  decided  in  the  negative  :  Ayes,  10  ;  noes,  36. 
All  the  ayes  were  from  the  New  England  States,  and  em- 
braced the  whole  delegation,  except  Chase,  of  Vt.,  and  Bell, 
of  N.  H.  ;  the  former  voting  in  the  negative,  and  the  name 
of  the  latter  not  appearing  on  either  side. 

The  debate  continued  from  this  time  (May  9th)  until  the 
13th,  during  which  time,  many  amendments  were  proposed, 
and  some  of  them  adopted.  Among  those  rejected,  was  one 
by  Mr.  Benton  to  increase  the  duty  on  hemp  ten  dollars  per 
tun  annually,  until  it  should  amount  to  ninety  dollars.  The 
question  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  was  taken,  May  13th, 
and  decided  in  the  affirmative,  26  to  21,  as  follows  : 

YEAS.  Massachusetts:  Webster.  Connecticut:  Foot,  Willey.  Rhode 
Island:  Knight.  Vermont:  Chase,  Seymour.  New  York:  Sanlbrd,  Van 
Buren.  New  Jersey:  Bateman,  Dickerson.  Pennsylvania:  Barnard, 
Marks.  Delaware:  McLane,  Ridgely.  Kentucky:  Johnson,  Roxvan. 
Tennessee:  Eaton.  Ohio :  Harrison,  Ruggles.  Louisiana:  Bouligny.  In- 
diana :  Hendricks,  Noble.  Illinois :  Kane,  Thomas.  Missouri :  Barton, 
Benton. 

NAYS.  Maine:  Chandler,  Pan-is.  New  Hampshire:  Woodbury.  Mast- 
achusetts :  Silsbee.  EJiode  Island :  Robbing.  Maryland:  Chambers,  Smith. 
Virginia:  Tazewell,  Tyler.  North  Carolina:  Branch,  Macon.  South  Car- 
olina: Smith,  Hayne.  Georgia:  Berrien,  Cobb.  Tennessee:  White.  Loui- 
liana:  Johnson.  Mississippi:  Ellis,  Williams.  Alabama:  King,  M'Kin- 
ley. 

The  bill  was  sent  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  where 
the  amendments  were  concurred  in  ;  and  it  became  a  law. 


1830.1  COLLECTION  OF  DUTIES.  235 


CHAPTER    X. 

Act  for  the  more  effectual  collection  of  duties.  Act  to  reduce  duties  on  tea  and 
coffee.  Tariff  act  of  1S32.  Clay's  resolutions  in  the  Senate  relating  thereto. 
M'Dufne's  bill  in  the  House.  Bill  of  Committee  on  Manufactures  reported 
by  Mr.  Adams. 

AT  the  session  of  1829-1830,  the  Committee  on  Manufac- 
tures in  the  House  of  Representatives  reported  a  "  bill  in 
alteration  of  the  several  acts  laying  duties  on  imports."  The 
object  of  this  bill,  however,  was  not  to  alter  the  duties,  but 
the  more  effectually  to  enforce  their  collection. 

It  had  been  ascertained  that  frauds  in  the  importation  of 
woolens,  to  a  great  extent,  were  perpetrated  in  violation  of 
the  tariff  act  of  1828.  Mr.  Mallary,  who  reported  the  bill, 
presented  testimony,  not  only  proving  clearly  that  frauds 
were  practiced,  by  which  duties  were  evaded,  but  describing 
the  manner  in  which  the  frauds  were  committed. 

Mr.  M'Duffie  said  he  would  always  be  in  favor  of  enforcing 
the  collection  of  the  revenue,  even  though  he  might  object 
to  the  laws  by  which  it  was  levied.  In  this  case,  however, 
he  would  do  it  by  diminishing  the  duties,  and  thereby  re- 
moving the  inducement  to  evade  the  duties.  With  this  view, 
'he  moved  to  amend  the  bill  by  striking-  out  the  principal 
part  of  it,  and  inserting  provisions  to  repeal  so  much  of  the 
acts  of  1824  and  1828,  as  increased  the  duties  on  wool  and 
woolens,  iron,  hemp,  flax,  cotton  bagging  and  other  cotton 
goods,  molasses,  and  indigo,  and  to  reduce  the  duty  on  salt. 

Thus  was  the  discussion  of  the  tariff  policy  again  opened. 
Mr.  M'Duffie  made  a  speech  of  unusual  length  upon  the  sub- 
ject, occupying  portions  of  three  different  days.  He  was 
followed  on  the  same  side  by  Mr.  Blair,  of  the  same  State, 
[S.  C.]  who  denied  the  constitutionality  of  protection,  and 
denounced  the  system  with  much  vehemence  They  were 
replied  to  by  Mr.  Davis,  of  Mass.,  who  spoke  at  great  length. 
The  debate  was  continued  for  about  a  week,  by  Messrs.  Craw- 
ford and  Denny,  of  Pa.,  Gorham  and  Everett,  of  Mass., 
Young,  of  Conn.,  Burges,  of  R.  I.,  and  Martindale,  of  N.  Y., 
in  favor  of  the  bill  and  of  protection  generally  ;  and  Messrs, 
Barnwell  and  Drayton,  of  S.  C.,  Cambreleng,  of  N.  Y.,  and 
Bouldin,  of  Va.,  in  opposition. 


236  TUE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  X. 

Seldom,  if  ever,  has  greater  ability  been  displayed  in  the 
discussion  of  this  exciting  question  than  in  this  debate.  We 
are  not  at  liberty,  however,  to  present  even  a  brief  abstract 
of  it.  We  can  do  little  more  than  exhibit  a  few  statements, 
promiscuously,  taken  from  some  of  the  speeches,  in  illustra- 
tion of  the  nature  and  effects  of  the  protective  system. 

Mr.  Young,  in  proof  of  the  declaration  that  prices  had  been 
reduced  by  the  competition  produced  by  protecting  duties, 
said  :  We  know  that  coarse  cotton  cloths  below  about  Xo. 
25,  have  been  fairly  protected  ;  those  from  that  to  about  No. 
45  or  50,  partially  protected  ;  those  above  that  very  slightly, 
including  what  are  termed,  in  our  tariff,  cambrics,  muslins, 
&c.  And  what  has  been  the  result  ?  While  the  fine  cottons, 
which  include  a  greater  proportion  of  labor,  and  should  have 
fallen  lower,  have  only  fallen  from  15  to  25  per  cent.,  (not  so 
much  as  3rour  agricultural  produce  in  the  same  time,)  coarse 
cotton  goods  have  fallen  from  50  to  75  per  cent.  This  case 
I  have  put  for  the  double  purpose  of  exemplifying  the  effects 
of  our  protection  and  competition  in  those  articles  we  manu- 
facture, and  of  showing  the  use  the  foreigner  makes  of  our 
market,  so  far  as  he  supplies  and  controls  it. 

I  will  give  another  instance,  exemplifying  the  same  effects, 
more  palpable  and  decisive  probably.  I  allude  to  common 
crockery  ware,  and  common  glass  ware  ;  both  imported  and 
sold  by  the  same  class  of  merchants  generally.  Glass  and 
glass  wares,  we  know,  have  received  such  protection  as  to 
excite  powerful  competition.  While  the  manufacture  of  com- 
mon, enameled,  and  printed  wares  has  as  yet  scarcely  been 
attempted  in  this  country,  some  brown  wares  and  imitation 
Delphian  wares  have  been  common,  and  some  new  manufac- 
tories of  porcelain  are  lately  promising  success.  But  the 
common  Liverpool  ware,  as  it  is  often  called,  has  at  all  times 
occupied,  commanded,  and  controlled  our  market,  and  regu- 
lated its  prices.  And  what  has  been  the  result  ?  While  ono 
has  hardly  fallen  15  per  cent.,  the  other  has  in  many  branches 
of  it,  fallen  75  per  cent.  And  the  opposers  of  this  S3rstem 
who  complained  so  much  of  its  injustice  and  oppression,  are 
now  actually  saving  25  per  cent.,  or  more,  on  their  glass 
wares,  in  consequence  of  this  protection,  and  losing  the  same 
amount  on  their  earthen  wares  for  the  want  of  such  protec- 
tion. 

Mr.  Y.  alluded  to  the  well  known  fact,  that  our  coarse  cot- 
tons were  successfully  competing  with  those  of  British  man- 
ufacture He  said,  the  great  mystery  of  our  competition  in 


1830.  j  INCIDENT  A*.  TARIFF  DEBATE.  237 

foreign  markets  is,  that  the  English  manufacturer  can  not, 
and  if  he  could,  ho  will  not,  (where  he  can  avoid  it,)  sell  his 
goods  at  our  present  reduced  prices,  where  he  can  command 
the  market.  The  American  manufacturer  asks  no  better 
business  than  to  sell  his  goods  at  the  English  market  price, 
where  the  English  manufacturer  and  merchant  have  the 
trade. 

The  English  manufacturer,  it  is  well  known,  has  long  en- 
joyed a  great  trade  in  cotton  yarn  with  the  nations  in  the 
North  of  Europe.  This  is  there  manufactured  into  cloth.  Any 
stuffing,  imperfection,  or  deception,  which  might  go  off  well 
enough  in  cloths  sold  here  and  there,  must  be  avoided  to  re- 
tain this  market.  It  is,  therefore,  policy  for  the  manufacturer 
to  make  this  an  honest,  fair  article,  and  of  course  it  is  a  fair 
article  to  compare  prices  upon  ;  and  a  fair  criterion,  and 
probably  the  only  exact  one  in  the  whole  range  of  our  rival 
cotton  arid  woolen  manufactures.  The  English  manufacturer, 
it  is  well  known,  is  in  the  habit  of  putting  the  American 
stamp  and  mark  on  his  own  fabrics,  from  a  consciousness  of 
their  superiority.  How  then  stands*  the  comparison  ?  I  have 
known  for  sometime  the  general  fact  that  we  were  undersell- 
ing the  English  manufacturer  in  this  article.  I  have  now  a 
statement  of  the  market  prices  of  cotton  goods  generally  in 
Manchester,  (England,)  and  Philadelphia,  and  the  price  of 
yarns,  collated  and  compared,  from  No.  12  to  No.  30,  inclu- 
sive, which  any  gentleman  may  examine,  and  have  evidence 
of  its  accuracy  ;  and  he  will  find  that  the  difference  is  nearer 
6  than  5  per  cent,  in  our  favor.  He  will  find,  too,  that  you 
can  purchase  one  pound  of  good  cotton  cloth,  of  American 
manufacture,  at  about  the  same  price  that  you  can  a  pound 
of  yarn  in  the  English  market.  Strange  as  it  may  seem,  the 
American  manufacturer,  if  he  were  permitted,  could  make  a 
good  business  in  sending  cotton  yarn  and  cotton  goods  to  a 
British  market,  to  Manchester  itself. 

These  facts,  Mr.  Y.  thought,  were  sufficient  to  prove,  that 
tbe  protection  of  domestic  manufactures  had  reduced  the 
prices  of  them  in  our  markets  below  the  average  prices  of 
similar  manufactures  of  other  nations  ;  and  that  the  Ameri- 
can manufacturers  do  and  can  furnish  their  fellow-citizens 
with  all  those  articles  which  are  fairly  protected,  at  lower 
prices  than  those  at  which  any  other  nation  does,  or  can,  or 
will  furnish  them. 

The  South  Carolina  members  had  mentioned  as  among  the 
grievances  of  the  South,  the  depreciation  of  the  price  of 
cotton. 


238  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  Tbap.  IX 

Mr.  Martindale,  of  N.  Y.,  remarked  :  The  tariff  has  not  re- 
duced the  price,  but  has  contributed  to  keep  it  up.  The 
South  has  overstocked  the  markets  of  the  world  ;  and  the 
price  has  fallen  in  exact  proportion  to  the  excess  of  supply. 
The  proof  to  this  point  is  abundant.  One  fact  alone  is  con- 
clusive. More  than  half  the  usual  crop  remains  on  hand  in 
the  English  market  at  the  close  of  every  season.  In  the 
whole  mass  of  commercial  commodities,  there  is  not  a  paral- 
lel to  this  excess  of  supply,  and  consequent  excess  of  cheap- 
ness. Would  the  repeal  of  the  tariff  remedy  this  ?  No  ;  it 
would  increase  the  mischief.  The  consumption  of  cotton 
would  be  less  ;  for  the  means  of  purchase  in  the  Northern 
States  would  be  greatly  diminished. 

The  history  of  the  past  proves  that  the  tariff  has  had  no 
influence  in  accelerating  this  depreciation  ;  nor  can  any  tariff 
arrest  it.  The  depreciation  was  more  rapid  before  the  tariff 
of  1824  than  it  has  been  at  any  time  since.  The  mania  of 
1 825,  which  raised  cotton  to  30  cents  a  pound,  will  not,  I  pre- 
sume, be  imputed  to  the  tariff.  In  five  years,  including  1819 
and  1823,  the  export  of  cotton  was  actually  doubled  ;  but 
the  price  of  the  whole  was  actually  diminished.  In  ten  years 
the  annual  crop  of  the  United  States  has  more  than  trebled. 
The  annual  crop  may  now  be  safely  estimated  at  300,000,000 
pounds  ;  but  the  value  is  less  than  $30,000,000.  This  in- 
crease is  without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  agriculture  ;  and 
though  its  consequences  are  natural  and  inevitable,  they 
have  by  no  means  been  what  they  would  have  been,  but  for 
the  opportune  introduction  of  manufactures  in  the  North,  and 
the  sugar  culture  at  the  South. 

The  question  was  taken  on  Mr.  M'Duffie's  amendments,  and 
decided  in  the  negative,  except  that  which  proposed  a  reduc- 
tion of  the  duty  on  salt.  This  having  been  amended  so  as 
to  reduce  the  duty  to  15  cents  per  bushel  after  September 
next,  and  to  10  cents  after  the  31st  of  December,  1831,  it  was 
adopted  ;  105  to  83. 

A  motion  was  made  the  next  day,  (May,  12,)  to  reconsider 
this  vote.  Salt  being  an  absolute  necessary,  it  was  by  some 
considered  an  improper  article  for  a  high  duty.  Others,  ad- 
vocated the  continuance  of  the  high  duty  as  an  encourage- 
ment of  domestic  manufacture*  The  price  of  salt,  it  was 
said,  owing  to  the  competition  of  manufacturers  and  import- 
ers, was  kept  pretty  steady  and  low,  and  would  be  gradually 
reduced.  From  a  statement  exhibited,  it  appeared  that,  ex- 
cepting  the  seven  years  next  after  1807,  (during  which  there 


1831.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  239 

was  no  duty  on  salt,  and  no  account  of  the  quantity  import- 
ed,) there  had  been  imported  from  1801  to  1826  inclusive, 
(19  years,)  about  63,000,000  bushels,  on  which  had  been  paid 
duties  to  the  amount  of  about  $12,500,000.  In  1790  a  duty 
was  laid  of  12  cents  a  bushel.  In  1797,  a  duty  of  20  cents. 
In  1807  the  duty  was  abolished.  In  1813,  the  duty  of  20 
cents  was  restored,  and  had  been  from  that  time  continued. 

The  question  to  reconsider  was  carried,  102  to  97  ;  and 
after  some  further  debate,  the  question  was  taken  on  the 
amendment  to  reduce  the  duty,  and  negatived  :  Yeas,  98  ; 
nays,  102. 

Mr.  Buchanan  having  previously  proposed  a  substitute  for 
the  bill  from  the  House,  the  question  was  taken  upon  the  bill, 
arid  decided  in  the  affirmative  :  127  to  40. 

The  title  of  the  bill  was  subsequently  altered  ;  and  the  act 
is  entitled,  An  Act  for  the  more  effectual  collection  of  impost 
duties.  It  made  no  change  in  the  duties,  except  on  rail- 
road and  scrap  iron.  The  bill  was  concurred  in  by  the 
Senate. 

An  act  was  passed  to  reduce  the  duties  on  coffee,  tea,  and 
cocoa.  On  coffee  to  2  cents  a  pound,  and  after  December 
31,  1831,  to  1  cent.  On  cocoa  to  1  cent.  On  teas,  after  the 
31st  of  December,  1831,  25  cents  on  imperial,  gunpowder, 
and  gomee  ;  hyson  and  young  hyson,  18  ;  hyson  skin  and 
other  green  teas,  12  cents  ;  black  teas,  except  bohea,  10 
cents  ;  bohea,  4  cents  per  pound.  A  higher  duty  was  to  be 
charged  on  teas  imported  from  any  place  this  side  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope,  or  in  foreign  vessels. 

At  the  next  session  of  Congress,  [1830-1831,]  a  memorial 
was  presented  from  mechanics  employed  in  various  branches 
of  the  manufactures  of  iron  in  Philadelphia,  as  steam  engine 
makers,  shipsmiths,  hardware  manufacturers,  blacksmiths, 
&c.,  praying  for  relief  from  the  burden  imposed  on  them  by 
the  high  duties  on  iron.  They  conclude  their  petition  by  say- 
ing :  All,  then,  that  your  memorialists  ask,  is,  that  the  exist- 
ing laws  shall  be  so  modified,  that  the  iron  which  is  now- 
imported  in  a  state  of  hardware  can  be  imported  in  a  cruder 
state,  and  thereby  give  equal  advantages  to  your  memorial- 
ists with  those  now  enjoyed  by  the  British  in  the  American 
market. 

Counter  memorials  from  persons  engaged  in  the  same  em- 
ployment were  presented.  The  session  was  too  near  its  close 
to  admit  of  action  on  the  subject. 

One  of  the  prominent  questions  which  signalized  the  first 


240  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  X. 

session  of  the  22d  Congress,  [1831-1832,]  was  that  of  a  re- 
vision of  the  tariff  of  1828.  From  the  expressions  of  dissatis- 
faction at  the  time  of  its  passage,  by  many  of  the  friends  as 
well  as  the  opponents  of  protection,  against  many  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  act  of  1828,  it  is  not  strange  that,  at  so  early 
a  period  as  four  years  after  its  passage,  an  attempt  should  be 
made  for  its  revision.  And  as  but  a  small  portion  of  the  pub- 
lic debt  remained  unpaid,  there  appeared  to  be  a  general  dis- 
position to  reduce  the  duties,  especially  on  such  articles  as 
did  not  come  into  competition  with  similar  articles  of  domes- 
tic growth  or  manufacture. 

Although  the  bill  which  formed  the  basis  of  the  act  of  1832, 
originated  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  subject  ap- 
pears to  have  been  first  introduced  in  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Clay,  who,  though  not  in  Congress  in  1828,  was  known 
to  have  entertained  strong  objections  to  certain  provisions 
of  the  act  of  that  year,  introduced,  on  the  9th  of  January, 
183:2,  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  existing  duties  upon  articles  imported 
from  foreign  countries,  and  not  coming  into  competition  with 
similar  articles  produced  within  the  United  States,  ought  to 
be  forthwith  abolished,  except  the  duties  upon  wines  and 
silks,  and  that  they  ought  to  be  reduced  ;  and  that  the  Com- 
mittee on  Finance  be  instructed  to  report  a  bill  accordingly. 

The  resolution  was  taken  up  for  consideration  on  the  llth. 

Mr.  Clay  presented  a  view  of  the  state  of  the  revenue  and 
the  public  debt,  and  a  calculation  as  to  the  amount  of  reve- 
nue necessary  to  be  raised  ;  and  proposed  a  reduction  of  rev- 
enue of  $7,000,000.  This  reduction,  he  said,  might  be  effect- 
ed in  various  ways  ;  three  of  which  he  noticed  : 

1st.  To  reduce  the  duties  on  all  articles  in  the  same  ratio, 
without  regard  to  protection. 

2d.  To  retain  them  on  unprotected  articles,  and  augment 
them  on  the  protected  articles.  • 

3d.  To  abolish  and  reduce  the  duties  on  unprotected  arti- 
cles, retaining  and  enforcing  the  faithful  collection  of  those 
on  the  protected  articles. 

The  third  mode,  he  said,  was  the  most  equitable  and  rea- 
sonable, arid  presented  an  undebatable  ground  upon  which, 
he  hoped,  all  could  safely  tread.  It  exacted  no  sacrifice  of 
principle  from  the  opponents  of  the  American  system  ;  it  com- 
prehended none  on  the  part  of  its  friends.  It  is  simple  and 
free  from  all  complexity.  It  divides  the  \vhi»le  subject  of  im- 
posts according  to  its  nature.  It  settles  at  onco  what  ought 


1832.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  241 

not  to  be  disputed,  and  leaves  to  be  settled  hereafter,  if  nec- 
essary, what  may  be  controverted.  I  came  here,  sir,  most 
anxiously  desiring  that  an  arrangement  of  the  public  reve- 
nue should  be  made,  which,  without  sacrificing  any  of  the 
great  interests  of  the  country,  would  reconcile  and  satisfy 
all  its  parts.  I  perceived  in  the  class  of  objects  not  produced 
within  the  country,  a  field  on  which  we  could  all  enter  in  a 
trite  spirit  of  compromise  and  harmony,  and  agree  upon  an 
amicable  adjustment.  Why  should  it  not  be  done  ?  Why 
should  those  who  are  opposed  to  the  American  system  de- 
mand of  its  friends  an  unconditional  surrender  ?  Yes,  sir,  I 
came  here  in  a  spirit  of  warm  attachment  to  all  parts  of  our 
country,  with  a  lively  solicitude  to  restore  peace  and  har- 
mony. That  such  may  be  the  spirit  presiding  over  our  de- 
liberations, and  such  their  issue,  I  yet  most  fervently  hope. 

Mr.  Hayne,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Clay,  expressed  great  dissatis- 
faction at  the  plan  proposed.  He  objected  to  it,  because  it 
proposed  to  take  off  only  six  or  seven  millions  from  the 
revenue,  and  to  confine  the  reduction  of  duty  to  articles 
which  do  not  enter  into  competition  with  similar  articles  pro- 
duced at  home  ;  in  other  words,  that  articles  of  universal 
consumption,  and  in  relation  to  which  every  class  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  every  portion  of  the  country,  contribute  equally, 
should  be  relieved  entirely  from  all  taxation,  while  the  high 
duties  on  protected  articles  were  to  remain  untouched.  In  a 
word,  that  the  bands  of  the  mammoth  system  of  injustice  and 
oppression  were  to  remain  unrelaxed — a  system  which  was 
felt  and  acknowledged  in  one  quarter  of  the  country  an  a 
boon  and  a  bounty,  and  in  another  as  an  insupportable  bur- 
de?i — a  system  which,  (in  the  language  of  the  Senator  from 
Kentucky,)  if  it  had  "  scattered  its  rich  fruits"  over  any  por- 
tion of  the  land,  had  visited  others  with  its  consuming  curses. 
Hew  was  it  possible  for  gentlemen  to  suppose  that  we  should 
mf  et  on  ground  which  involved  no  concession  whatever  to 
our  views,  but  which  proposed  to  maintain  the  protecting 
system  in  all  its  unmitigated  rigor,  thus  aggravating,  instead 
of  diminishing  the  inequality  and  injustice  of  which  we  so 
ju,<;tly  complain  ?  It  follows,  then,  that  we  are  to  have  no 
reduction  of  the  protecting  duties  whatever,  either  now  or  at 
any  future  period.  In  the  presence  of  this  august  body,  and 
before  his  God,  he  would  repeat  his  deep  conviction,  that  the 
consequences  to  grow  out  of  the  adjustment  of  this  great 
question  involved  the  destinies  of  this  country  ;  and  in  order 
that  we  may  approach  it  with  wary  steps,  he  would  now 
11 


243  TEE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  X. 

move  that  the  further  consideration  of  the  resolution  should 
be  postponed  to,  and  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Monday 
next.  The  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  Senate,  on  Monday,  took  up  the  resolution,  when — 

Mr.  Hayne  moved  to  modify  the  resolution,  so  as  to  re- 
quire that  the  duty  "  be  so  reduced  that  the  amount  of  the 
public  revenue  shall  be  sufficient  to  defray  the  expenses  of 
Government  after  the  payment  of  the  public  debt  ;  and  that, 
allowing  a  reasonable  time  for  the  gradual  reduction  of  the 
present  high  duties  on  the  articles  coming  into  competition 
with  similar  articles  made  or  produced  within  the  United 
States,  the  duties  be  ultimately  equalized,  so  that  the  duty 
on  no  article  shall,  as  compared  with  the" value  of  that  arti- 
cle, vary  materially  from  the  general  average." 

Thus  was  the  issue  joined — the  contest  begun — in  the  Sen- 
ate. The  champion  of  the  "  American  system"  had  avowed 
his  assent  to  a  reduction  of  the  revenue  by  a  reduction  of  du- 
ties ;  but  this  reduction  was  to  extend  only  to  articles  of 
such  kinds  as  were  not  produced  in  this  country  ;  while  the 
most  distinguished  representative  of  "  free  trade"  manifested 
a  determination  to  sever,  if  possible,  "  the  bands  of  that 
mammoth  system  of  injustice  and  oppression"  which  was  so 
obnoxious  to  the  South. 

Seldom  has  the  Senate  contained  a  greater  amount  of  tal- 
ent than  it  did  at  this  time,  as  will  appear  from  the  names 
of  those  who  participated  in  the  debate,  viz  :  Messrs.  Holmes 
and  Sprague,  of  Maine  ;  Hill,  of  N.  H.;  Knight  and  Bobbins, 
of  R.  I.;  Marcy,  of  N.  Y.;  Dickerson,  of  N.  J. ;  Dallas  and 
Wilkins,  of  Pa.;  Smith,  of  Md.;  Tazewell  and  Tyler,  of  Va.; 
Mangum,  of  N.  C.;  Hayne  and  Miller,  of  S.  C.;  Forsyth,  of 
Ga.;  Bibb  and  Clay,  of  Ky.;  Grundy,  of  Ten.;  Ewing,  of  Ohio  ; 
Hendricks,  of  Ind. ;  Poindexter,  of  Miss.;  King  and  Moore, 
of  Ala.;  Benton,  of  Mo.,  and  several  others.  Messrs.  Web- 
ster, of  Mass.,  and  Frelinghuysen,  of  X.  J.,  were  also  in  the 
Senate,  but  took  no  part  in  the  debate  on  Mr.  Clay's  resolu- 
tions. 

Distinguished  as  the  debate  was  for  ability  and  states- 
manship, not  many  new  views  on  this  oft  discussed  question 
were  presented.  Many  new  facts,  however,  were  stated  in 
illustration  of  the  arguments  of  speakers.  Those  who  have 
read  the  preceding  pages  will  be  already  in  possession  of 
most  of  the  arguments  by  which  the  tariff  policy  is  supported 
and  opposed  ;  and  we  shall  therefore  occupy  but  a  few  pages 
with  the  remarks  of  speakers  on  these  resolutions. 


1832.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  24$ 

Southern  Senators,  as  usual,  complained  of  oppression  and 
distress.  Said  Mr.  Hayne  :  I  assure  the  gentleman  that  the 
condition  of  the  South  is  not  merely  one  of  unexampled  de- 
pression, but  of  great  and  all-pervading  distress^  In  my 
own  State,  the  unhappy  change  which  has  within  a  few  years 
past  taken  place  in  the  public  prosperity,  is  of  the  most  ap- 
palling character.  If  we  look  at  the  present  condition  of  our 
cities,  (Charleston,  for  example,)  we  find  every  where  the 
mournful  evidence  of  premature  decay.  Sir,  it  is  within  my 
own  experience,  that,  in  the  devoted  city  in  which  my  lot  has 
been  cast,  a  thriving  commerce  was,  within  a  few  years  past, 
carred  on  direct  to  Europe.  We  had  native  merchants,  with 
large  capitals,  engaged  in  the  foreign  trade.  We  had  thirty 
or  forty  ships,  many  of  them  built,  and  all  owned,  in  Charles- 
ton, and  giving  employment  to  a  numerous  and  valuable 
body  of  mechanics  and  tradesmen.  Look  at  the  state  of 
things  now.  Our  merchants  bankrupt  or  driven  away — their 
capital  sunk  or  transferred  to  other  pursuits — our  shipyards 
broken  up — our  ships  all  sold — our  mechanics  in  despair— 
the  very  grass  growing  in  our  streets,  and  houses  falling 
into  ruins — real  estate  reduced  to  one-third  part  of  its  value, 
and  rents  almost  to  nothing.  ...  If  we  fly  from  the  city 
to  the  country,  what  do  we  there  behold  ?  Fields  abandoned  ; 
the  hospitable  mansions  of  our  fathers  deserted  ;  agriculture 
drooping  ;  our  slaves,  like  their  masters,  working  harder 
and  faring  worse  ;  the  planter  striving  with  unavailing  ef- 
forts to  avert  the  ruin  which  is  before  him. 

Mr.  Holmes,  of  Maine,  in  reply,  said  :  It  seems  to  me  that 
the  evils  which  we  have  heard  described  with  such  feeling 
and  touching  eloquence,  must  be  either  imaginary  or  greatly 
exaggerated.  In  1824,  in  discussing  the  subject  of  the  tariff, 
that  Senator  thus  described  the  then  condition  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States  :  "All  classes  of  our  people  are  sup- 
plied with  food,  not,  as  in  many  parts  of  Europe,  a  single  kind, 
and  of  insufficient  quantity,  but  in  a  great  variety  and  in 
vast  abundance.  They  have  convenient  dwellings,  sufficient 
fuel,  warm  and  comfortable  clothing  ;  and  these  blessings  are 
possesed  to  an  extent  which  leaves  no  room  for  complaint  in 
any  part  of  the  country.  We  possess,  too,  the  means  of 
educating  our  children." 

Now,  in  little  more  than  seven  short  years,  they,  from  this 
high  eminence,  this  summit  of  human  happiness,  are  plunged 
into  the  deepest  and  darkest  abyss  of  misery  and  despair. 
In  looking  at  the  population  of  the  cotton  growing  States, 


244  THE  PROTECTIVE  SrSTEM.  [Chap.  X. 

South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Tennessee,  Alabama,  Mississippi, 
aud  Louisiana,  I  find  that  in  ten  years,  from  1820  to  1830, 
there  was  an  increase  of  nearly  fifty  per  cent.  ;  and,  allowing 
a  proportionate  gain  for  the  next  ten  years,  it  will  double  in 
twenty  years.  Here  is  an  indication  of  prosperity.  Further  : 
the  great  staple,  the  chief  industry  of  these  people,  is  cotton 
planting.  Let  us  see  the  result  of  these  products  at  two 
given  periods,  1821  and  1830  : 

1821.  1830.  Gain. 

Cotton,       Ibs.  124,993,404  290,314,937  165,318,532 

Value,  $20,157,484          $29,674,883  $9,517,399 

By  these  results  we  see  a  population  doubling  in  twenty 
years,  increasing  in  the  export  of  its  great  staple  one-half  in 
value,  and  nearly  three-fifths  in  quantity,  increasing  the  home 
consumption  of  the  article  at  least  one-half  in  the  same  pe- 
riod, and  fr.rnishing  in  it  more  than  half  of  all  the  domestic 
exports  of  the  United  States  ;  and  yet  within  the  last  seven 
years  fallen  into  the  region  of  despair.  Sir,  if  this  is  so,  it 
is  a  paradox  that  would  confound  and  paralyze  every  polit- 
ical economist  and  statesman  who  ever  wrote. 

Mr.  Dallas,  of  Pa,,  on  the  same  subject,  said  :  Other 
causes  exist,  adequate  to  all  the  lamented  distresses.  Among 
these  is  one  which,  alone,  unaided  by  cooperation  from  others, 
necessarily  leads  to  results  of  wide-spread,  protracted,  and 
co?ispicuous  embarrassment  and  desolation.  The  great 
Southern  staple,  cotton,  is  the  product  of  an  exhausting 
plant — a  plant  which  feeds  voraciously  upon  the  fertility  and 
strength  of  the  best  soils.  Every  returning  season  finds  the 
earth  in  which  it  is  cultivated  less  competent  to  supply  its 
exactions,  and  sustaining,  therefore,  a  less  hardy  and  gen- 
erous growth.  The  ult:raate  dissatisfaction  of  the  planter, 
whose  produce  thus  annually  diminishes,  is  inevitable.  He 
struggles,  perhaps,  for  years,  in  fruitless  efforts,  to  revive 
the  original  fecundity  of  his  farm  ;  to  arrest,  at  least,  its 
gridual  decrease  from  eight  to  six  bales,  by  the  hand,  to 
tM  o  or  three  ;  .  .  .  and  finally,  while  he  has  yet  scarcely 
entertained  the  project  of  removal,  casts  his  anxious  eyes 
upon  the  immense  region,  in  his  immediate  vicinity,  of  land 
much  cheaper  than  in  his  native  State,  of  virgin  soil,  of  su- 
perior fitness  for  the  plant  to  which  his  skill  and  industry 
have  long  been  adapted.  Is  it  surprising  that  this  boundless 
range  of  territory  should  attract  capital  and  enterprise  to  the 
culture  of  cotton  from  all  parts  of  the  country  ?  that  the 
quantity  of  production  should  rapidly  augment,  and  its  rela- 


1832.J  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  245 

tive  value  or  price  fall,  or  that  it  should  offer  temptations  to 
abandon  the  comparatively  spent  farms  heretofore  tilled  ? 

One  of  the  causes  of  complaint  mentioned  by  Southern 
Senators,  was  the  low  price  of  cotton,  which  they  ascribed 
to  the  tariff. 

Mr.  Ewing,  of  Ohio,  had  previously  assigned,  as  one  of  the 
causes  of  the  reduction  of  the  price  of  cotton,  the  same  as 
that  above  cited  from  Mr.  Dallas — namely,  over-production 
A  large  extent  of  fertile  lands  had  been  brought  into  culti- 
vation, and  a  vast  amount  of  this  product  had  been  thrown 
into  market  ;  and  the  price  had  fallen  from  84  cents,  in  1818, 
to  11  cents,  in  1823,  before  the  tariff  act  of  1824  was  passed. 
A  part  of  this  reduction,  however,  he  ascribed  to  the  rise  in 
the  price  of  money.  And  it  was  remarked,  in  the  course  of 
the  debate,  that  flour,  tobacco,  and  other  agricultural  pro- 
ducts had  fallen,  some  in  equal,  and  others  in  nearly  the 
same  proportion. 

It  was  contended,  in  this  debate,  as  usual,  by  the  oppo- 
nents of  protection,  that  the  duties  necessarily  keep  down 
foreign  competition,  and  enhance  the  price  of  the  product  to 
the  consumer. 

Mr.  Holmes,  in  answer  to  this,  said  :  Whether  the  impost 
falls  on  the  consumer  or  on  the  producer,  or  is  divided  be- 
tween them,  depends  upon  the  demand.  If  the  producer  is 
more  necessitated  to  sell  than  the  consumer  to  buy,  the  im- 
post falls  on  the  former  ;  if  the  reverse,  it  falls  on  the  latter  ; 
if  the  necessity  is  equal,  it  is  divided  between  both.  Dimin- 
ish the  number  of  producers,  and  you  destroy  the  competi- 
tion in  the  production.  Diminish  the  number  of  consumers, 
and  you  effect  the  same  in  the  consumption.  The  Senator 
tells  us  that  a  coat  may  be  purchased  cheaper  in  Canada 
than  in  the  United  States.  Be  it  so  ;  and  what  would  be  the 
result  should  you  withdraw  the  protection  from  your  own 
woolens  ?  Should  it  suppress  the  American  fabric,  the  Brit- 
ish manufacturer  would  be  almost  without  competition.  He 
then  could  furnish  the  market,  and  establish  the  price.  Take 
a  simple  illustration  :  In  a  country  village  there  are  twenty 
consumers  of  a  single  manufacture,  and  two  producers  of  the 
article.  While  these  rival  artists  remain,  each  would  at- 
tempt to  excel  the  other,  and  the  purchasers  would  all  profit 
by  the  competition.  Let  one  of  the  two  be  withdrawn,  and 
would  not  the  whole  twenty  suffer  by  being  left  at  the  mercy 
of  a  single  producer,  who  might  demand  his  own  price  ? 
Further  :  Suppose,  in  the  same  village,  twenty  producers  of 


246  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  .         [Chop.  X. 

the  raw  material  should  furnish  these  two  manufacturers. 
On  the  withdrawal  of  one,  would  not  these  twenty  equally 
suffer  with  the  consumers  ?  Now  if  Great  Britain  were  our 
sole  manufacturer,  and  we  were  the  consumers  of  her  pro- 
ducts, and  the  producers  to  her  of  the  raw  material,  why 
would  not  the  producers  of  this  raw  material,  and  the  con- 
sumers of  the  manufactured  article,  be  as  much  in  her  power 
as  in  the  example  cited  ? 

But  if  you  calculate  upon  relief  from  this,  by  supposing 
that  her  manufacturers  will  so  compete  with  each  other,  each 
striving  for  the  preference  in  our  market,  you  have  forgotten 
her  whole  policy.  You  would  find  combination  and  monopoly, 
instead  of  competition  and  rivalry  ;  and  we  should  be  made 
the  sport  of  her  capitalists,  and,  in  effect,  be  re-colonized. 

Mr.  H.,  to  prove  his  argument,  refers  to  prices.  He  said  : 
If  any  one  rule,  more  than  another,  is  to  be  relied  on,  it  is 
this,  that  as  soon  as  protection  begins  to  operate,  and  in  pro- 
portion to  its  operation,  the  tax  is  reflected  back  from  the 
consumer  to  the  producer.  Take  the  case  of  bar  iron.  In  the 
years  1818,  1826,  and  1830,  when  the  tariffs  of  1810,  1824, 
and  1828,  were  in  full  operation.  I  recur  to  the  price  current  in 
Boston,  and  select  for  an  example,  "  Old  Sable."  In  1818,  the 
duty  was  $9  per  ton,  and  the  price,  including  the  duty,  $104. 
In  1826,  duty,  $18  ;  price,  including  duty,  $100.  In  1830, 
duty,  $22  40  ;  price,  including  duty,  $96.  Thus,  while  the 
duty  has  been  constantly  increasing,  the  article  taxed  has 
been  as  constantly  diminishing.  Tne  reason  is  as  manifest 
as  the  fact  is  true — the  domestic  article  has  been  increasing 
in  quantity.  Suppose  the  foreign  manufacturer  furnished 
three-fourths  of  your  consumption,  the  greater  quantity  would 
command  the  price,  and  this  tax  would  fall  on  the  consumer. 
But  let  the  domestic  product  increase  to  one-half,  the  compe- 
tition between  foreign  and  domestic  producers  will  be  more 
equalized,  and  the  tax  will  be  divided  between  the  producer 
and  consumer.  Let  the  domestic  product  be  three-fourths, 
and  your  own  producers  govern  the  market,  and  the  foreign 
producer  bears  the  tax,  or  nearly  so.  Again  :  take  the  arti- 
cle of  nails  :  the  duty  5  cents  per  pound,  and  the  nails,  duty 
and  all,  but  51  cents,  when  the  raw  material  of  which  they 
are  made  is  4|  cents.  Cheese,  duty  9  cents  per  pound,  and 
the  best  cheese  may  be  had  for  8  ctMits. 

Mr.  Knight,  of  K.  I.,  said,  on  the  same  subject — that  of 
price  :  It  has  been  asserted  here,  that  the  bounty  to  the  man- 
ufacturers of  cotton  goods  alone  is  nearly  $9,000,000.  With 


1832.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE  247 

all  the  rhetoric  and  arithmetic  of  gentlemen,  they  will  be 
much  troubled  to  make  a  plain  man  understand  that,  when  he 
purchases  a  yard  of  cotton  cloth  for  7  cents,  he  pays  a  tax  of 
8  cents  (that  being  the  duty)  into  the  treasury  of  the  Union, 
or  a  like  sum,  in  the  form  of  bounty,  to  the  manufacturer. 
You  may  show  it  by  figures,  and  prove  it  by  argument  ;  but 
he  will  still  doubt,  and  be  apt  to  believe  it  is  only  a  vision  of 
those  that  assert  it.  It  is  said  200,000  bales  of  cotton  were 
manufactured  in  the  United  States  the  last  year.  Cotton  is 
protected  by  a  duty  of  3  cents  per  pound.  Estimating  it  at 
300  pounds  per  bale,  the  protection  on  the  same,  if  the  reason- 
ing of  gentlemen  is  correct,  is  $L, 800,000,  and  should  be  set 
down  as  taxes  paid  by  the  consumer,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
cotton  grower. 

But  another  grave  charge  'against  the  protecting  system, 
said  Mr.  K.,  is  this  :  High  imposts  upon  the  fabrics  of  those 
who  take  our  raw  materials,  diminish  the  demand  for  such 
materials.  This  is  supposed  to  be  done  by  taxing  the  con- 
sumer, and  lessening  the  consumption  ;  or  by  taxing  the  pro- 
ducer, lessening  his  profits,  and,  consequently,  driving1  many 
from  employment.  This  alarm  was  sounded  loud  in  the  dis- 
cussions of  the  tariff  of  1824.  The  Senator  from  South  Caro- 
lina, relying  on  the  calculations  of  a  member  of  the  other 
house,  [Air.  Cambreleng,]  prophesied  that  that  bill  would  di- 
minish the  importations  $26,000,000,  the  revenue  $8,000,000, 
exclude  cotton  fabrics  $7,000,000,  the  duties  on  which  would 
be  $3,000,000,  and  diminish  the  exports  of  our  cotton  44,000,- 
000  pounds.  Yet  our  exportation  of  cotton,  which  was,  in  1823, 
the  year  before  that  tariff,  173,723,270  pounds,  value,  $20,- 
445,520,  had  increased,  in  1826,  to  204,535,415  pounds,  value 
$26,625,214.  Our  whole  imports  for  1823  were  $77,579,767  ; 
for  1824,  $80,549,007  ;  for  1825,  $96,340,075  ;  for  1826,  $84,- 
994,477.  So  also  the  importation  of  cotton  fabrics  increased  ; 
being  over  and  above  the  amount  re-exported,  in  1823,  $5,- 
587,097  ;  in  1824,  $5,037,075  ;  in  1825,  $10,105,061  ;  in 
1826,  $6,191,228. 

You  see,  sir,  by  this  exhibit,  that,  contrary  to  the  strong 
prediction  of  such  a  fatal  diminution  of  trade,  the  importa- 
tions and  exportations,  particularly  of  cotton  <°.nd  cotton 
fabrics,  have  been  surprisingly  increased  ;  so  that,  in  1830, 
the  cotton  exported  was  290,3il,937  pounds,  valued  at  $29,- 
674,883,  and  the  cotton  fabrics  imported  for  consumption, 
$5,926,070.  Here  we  have  the  direct  proof,  by  matter  of  fact, 
that  our  reasoning  is  sound  and  conclusive.  The  necessity 


248  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEiL  [Chap.  X 

of  the  producer  has  become  greater  than  that  of  the  consumer, 
by  the  competition  which  your  protection  has  caused,  and, 
consequently,  a  reduction  of  price  and  an  increase  of  con- 
sumption. I  will  show  most  clearly  that  the  consumption  of 
the  foreign  fabric  has  greatly  increased  under  the  operation 
of  your  tariff.  It  is  a  palpable  error  to  try  this  by  the  price 
or  money  value  of  the  article  imported.  If  the  same  goods 
are  obtained  for  one  million  that  heretofore  cost  three,  the 
consumption  is  treble,  though  the  value  is  the  same.  Take 
the  cotton  fabrics  imported  :  they  were,  deducting  the  reex- 
portations, in  1821,  $5,707,450  ;  in  1830,  $5,926,070— an  in- 
crease of  $218,630  only,  if  you  regard  the  price.  But  the 
price  of  these  goods,  in  those  two  years,  was  as  32  to 
11  ;  that  is,  the  same  goods,  in  quantity  and  quality,  which 
cost  32  cents  in  1821,  could  be  purchased  in  1830  for  11  cents. 
So  that  we  consumed,  in  the  latter  year,  nearly  three  yards 
to  one  in  the  former. 

But  this  is  not  all.  There  has  been  a  corresponding  in- 
crease of  quantity  and  reduction  of  price  in  the  domestic 
fabric.  We  can  probably  manufacture,  at  this  time,  100,000, 
000  pounds  of  cotton,  valued  at  $10,000,000.  Suppose  the 
fabric  to  be  quadruple  the  raw  material,  the  manufactured 
article  would  be  worth  $40,000,000.  Deduct  the  exportation, 
and  the  whole  consumption  of  cotton  fabrics,  foreign  and  do- 
mestic, can  fall  little  short  of  $45,000,000  ;  which,  at  the 
price  of  1821,  would  amount  to  $135,000,000.  How  are  thes-o 
things  to  be  accounted  for,  but  from  an  intensely  active  corn- 
petition  between  manufacturers,  foreign  and  domestic  ?  Your 
Erotective  system,  if  it  has  not  done  all,  has  contributed 
irgely  to  this  result. 

Mr.  Clay,  speaking  of  the  change  in  the  condition  of  the 
country  since  the  tariff  of  1824,  said  :  The  foes  of  the  Ameri- 
can system,  in  1824,  with  great  confidence,  predicted,  1st. 
The  ruin  of  the  public  revenue.  The  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina,  [Mr.  Hayne,]  I  believe,  thought  it  would  be  reduced 
$8,000,000.  2d.  The  destruction  of  our  navigation.  3d.  The 
desolation  of  commercial  cities.  And  4th.  The  augmentation 
of  the  price  of  objects  of  consumption,  and  further  decline  in 
that  of  the  articles  of  our  exports.  Every  prediction  which 
they  made  has  failed,  utterly  failed.  Instead  of  the  ruin  of 
the  public  revenue,  with  which  they  then  sought  to  deter  us 
from  the  adoption  of  the  American  system,  we  are  now  threat- 
ened with  its  subversion,  by  the  vast  amount  of  the  public 
revenue  produced  by  that  system.  Every  branch  of  our  navi- 


1832.J  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  249 

gation  has  increased.  As  to  the  desolation  of  our  cities,  let 
us  take,  as  an  example,  the  condition  of  the  largest  and  most 
commercial  of  all  of  them,  the  great  .Northern  capital.  [Mr.  C. 
here  presented  the  assessed  value  of  real  estate  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  which  was  in  1817,  $57,799,435  ;  in  1824,  the 
year  of  the  tariff,  $52,019,730.  In  1825,  it  rose,  and,  gradu- 
ally ascending,  it  reached,  in  1831,  $95,716,485.]  Now,  said 
Mr.  C.,  if  it  be  said  that  this  rapid  growth  was  the  effect  of 
foreign  commerce,  then  it  was  not  correctly  predicted,  in  1824, 
that  the  tariff  would  destroy  foreign  commerce,  and  desolate 
our  commercial  cities.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  be  the  effect  of 
internal  trade,  then  internal  trade  can  not  be  justly  charge- 
able with  the  evil  consequences  imputed  to  it.  The  truth  is, 
it  is  the  joint  effect  of  both  principles — the  domestic  industry 
nourishing  the  foreign  trade,  and  the  foreign  commerce,  in 
turn,  nourishing  the  domestic  industry. 

Why,  sir,  there  is  scarcely  an  interest,  scarcely  a  vocation 
in  society,  which  is  not  embraced  by  the  beneficence  of  this 
system.  It  comprehends  our  coasting  trade  and  tunnage, 
from  which  all  foreign  tunnage  is  absolutely  excluded.  It 
includes  all  our  foreign  tunnage  with  the  inconsiderable  ex- 
ception made  by  treaties  of  reciprocity  with  a  few  foreign 
Powers.  It  embraces  our  fisheries  and  all  our  enterprising 
and  hardy  fishermen.  It  extends  to  almost  every  mechanic 
art.  [Here  Mr.  C.  enumerated  about  fifty  different  classes  of 
mechanics.]  These  mechanics  enjoy  a  measure  of  protec- 
tion adapted  to  their  several  conditions,  varying  from  20  to 
50  per  cent.  The  extent  and  importance  of  some  of  these1  ar- 
tisans may  be  estimated  by  a  few  particulars.  The  tanners 
and  curriers,  boot  and  shoe  makers,  and  other  workers  in 
leather,  hides,  and  skins,  produce  an  ultimate  value,  annually, 
of  $40,000,000  ;  manufacturers  of  hats  and  caps  produce  an 
annual  value  of  $15,000,000  ;  the  cabinet-makers,  $12,000,- 
000  ;  the  manufacturers  of  bonnets  and  hats  for  the  female 
sex,  lace,  artificial  flowers,  combs,  &c.,  $7,000,000  ;  manufac- 
turers of  glass,  $5,000,000.  It  extends  to  the  great,  staple 
of  Louisiana — sugar.  It  affects  the  cotton  planter  himself, 
and  the  tobacco  planter,  both  of  whom  enjoy  protection. 

The  total  amount  of  capital  vested  in  sheep,  the  land  to 
sustain  them,  wool,  woolen  manufactures,  and  the  subsis- 
tence of  the  persons  directly  or  indirectly  employed  in  the 
growth  and  manufacture  of  wool,  is  estimated  at  $167,000, 
000,  and  the  number  of  persons  at  150,000. 

II* 


250  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  {Chap,  X. 

The  value  of  iron,  considered  as  a  raw  material,  and  of  its 
manufactures,  is  estimated  at  $26,000,000  per  annum. 

Cotton  goods,  exclusive  of  the  capital  vested  in  the  man- 
ufacture, and  of  the  cost  of  the  raw  material,  are  believed  to 
amount,  annually,  to  about  $20,000,000. 

Such  are  some  of  the  items  of  this  vast  system  of  protec- 
tion which  it  is  proposed  to  abandon.  We  might  well  pause 
and  contemplate,  if  human  imagination  could  conceive,  the 
extent  of  the  mischief  and  ruin  from  its  total  overthrow,  be- 
fore we  proceed  to  the  work  of  destruction. 

Mr.  0.  went  at  length  into  a  statement  showing  the  reduc- 
tion of  prices  of  the  principal  manufactures.  He  said  :  I  ap- 
peal to  the  farmer,  whether  he  does  not  purchase  on  better 
terms,  his  iron,  salt,  brown  sugar,  cotton  goods,  and  wool- 
ens, for  his  laboring  people.  And  I  ask  the  cotton  planter 
if  he  has  not  been  better  and  more  cheaply  supplied  with  his 
cotton  bagging.  I  plant  myself  upon  this  FACT  of  cheap- 
ness and  superiority,  as  upon  impregnable  ground.  Gentle- 
men may  tax  their  ingenuity,  and  produce  a  thousand  specu- 
lative solutions  of  the  fact  ;  but  the  fact  itself  will  remain 
undisturbed.  Mr.  C.  then  noticed  particularly  iron,  of  differ- 
ent kinds,  coarse  cotton  goods,  calicoes,  brown  sugars,  nails, 
all  of  which  had  fallen  under  increased  duties.  Window 
glass,  8  by  10,  prior  to  the  tariff  of  1824,  sold  for  $12  or  $13, 
per  100  feet  ;  now,  $3  75.  In  woolens,  also,  there  had  been 
a  reduction,  and  would  have  been  still  greater,  but  for  the 
high  duty  on  the  raw  material  imposed  for  the  particular 
benefit  of  the  farming  interest.  The  protection  given  to  flan- 
nels in  1828  was  fully  adequate.  It  has  enabled  the  Amer- 
ican manufacturer  to  obtain  complete  possession  of  the  Amer- 
ican market  ;  and  now  let  us  look  at  the  effect.  I  have  be- 
fore me  a  statement  from  a  highly  respectable  mercantile 
house,  showing  the  price  of  four  descriptions  of  flannels  dur- 
ing six  years.  The  average  price  of  them  in  1826  was  38  j 
cents  ;  in  1827,  33  cents  ;  in  1828,  (the  year  of  the  tariff,) 
46  cents  ;  in  1829,  36  cents  ;  in  1830,  (notwithstanding  the 
advance  in  the  price  of  wool,)  32  cents  ;  and  in  1831,  32J 
cents.  These  facts  require  no  comments. 

I  have  before  me  another  statement  of  a  practical  man, 
well  versed  in  the  flannel  manufacture  in  America  and  Eng- 
land, demonstrating  that  the  cost  of  manufacturing  is  pre- 
cisely the  same  in  both  countries  ;  and  that,  although  a  yard 
of  flannel  which  would  sell  in  England  for  15  cents,  would 
command  here  22  ;  the  difference  of  7  cents  being  the  exact 


1832.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  251 

difference  between  the  cost  in  the  two  countries  of  the  six 
ounces  of  wool  contained  in  a  yard  of  flannel. 

Mr.  C.  replied  to  several  explanations  of  the  causes  to 
which  Mr.  Hayne  had  ascribed  this  reduction  of  prices,  and 
then  said  :  'The  great  law  of  price  is  determined  by  supply 
and  demand.  If  the  supply  is  increased,  the  demand  remaining 
the  same,  the  price  declines  ;  if  the  demand  is  increased,  the 
supply  remaining  the  same,  the  price  advances.  It  is  there- 
fore a  great  error  to  suppose  that  an  existing  or  new  duty 
necessarily  becomes,  to  its  exact  amount,  a  component  element 
of  price.  If  the  proportions  of  demand  and  supply  are  varied 
by  the  duty,  either  in  augmenting  the  supply  or  diminishing 
the  demand,  or  vice  versa,  price  is  affected  to  the  extent  of 
that  variation.  But  the  duty  never  becomes  an  integral  part 
of  the  price,  except  when,  after  the  duty  is  imposed,  the  de- 
mand and  supply  remain  precisely  the  same  as  they  were,  or 
the  demand  is  increased,  and  the  supply  remains  stationary. 

Competition,  therefore,  whether  at  home  or  abroad,  is  the  pa- 
rent cause  of  cheapness.  If  a  high  duty  excites  production  at 
home,  and  the  quantity  of  the  domestic  article  exceeds  the 
amount  which  has  been  previously  imported,  the  price  will 
fall.  This  accounts  for  an  extraordinary  fact,  stated  by  a 
Senator  from  Missouri.  A  duty  of  3  cents  was  laid  upon  a 
pound  of  lead  by  the  act  of  1828.  The  price  at  Galena  and 
other  lead  mines  afterwards  fell  to  1  \  cents  per  pound.  Now 
it  is  obvious  that  the  duty  did  not,  in  this  case,  enter  into 
the  price  ;  for  it  was  twice  the  amount  of  the  price.  What 
produced  the  fall  ?  It  was  stimulated  production  at  home,  ex- 
erted by  the  temptation  of  the  exclusive  possession  of  the 
home  market.  This  state  of  things  could  not  last.  Men 
would  not  continue  an  unprofitable  pursuit.  Some  abandoned 
the  business,  or  the  total  quantity  produced  was  diminished, 
and  living  prices  have  been  the  consequence.  It  is  not  fair 
to  credit  the  foreign  market  with  the  depression  of  prices 
produced  there  by  the  influence  of  our  competition.  Let  the 
competition  be  withdrawn,  and  their  prices  would  instantly 
rise. 

But  it  is  asked,  if,  after  we  have  acquired  the  requisite 
skill  and  experience,  we  can  make  certain  articles  as  cheap 
as  similar  articles  abroad,  why  not  repeal  the  duties  as  to 
those  articles  ?  And  why  should  we  ?  Assuming  the  truth 
of  the  supposition,  the  foreign  article  would  not  be  intro- 
duced in  a  regular  course  of  trade  ;  but  would  remain  ex- 
cluded by  the  domestic  article.  But  might  not  the  foreign 


252  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  X, 

article  be  imported  in  vast  quantities  to  glut  our  markets, 
break  down  our  establishments,  and,  ultimately,  to  enable 
the  foreigner  to  monopolize  the  supply  of  our  consumption  ? 

The  fluctuation  and  fall  of  price  in  cotton  having  been  as- 
cribed to  the  tariff,  Mr.  C.  cited  Southern  authority,  showing 
that  "  the  greatest  fluctuation  in  the  price  of  cotton,  was  be- 
fore the  tariff  of  1828."  He  showed  also  that  the  price  of 
cotton  had  fallen  no  more  than  other  agricultural  produce. 

The  opinions  of  British  writers,  having  been  adduced  in 
favor  of  the  principle  of  free  trade,  Mr.  C.  also  quoted  from 
British  statesmen.  Among  others,  a  member  of  Parliament 
had  said  :  "  It  is  idle  for  us  to  endeavor  to  persuade  other 
nations  to  join  with  us  in  adopting  the  principles  of  what  is 
called  '  free  trade/  Other  nations  know,  as  well  as  the  no- 
ble lord  opposite,  and  those  who  act  with  him,  that  what  we 
mean  by  '  free  trade/  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than,  by  means 
of  the  great  advantages  we  enjoy,  to  get  a  monopoly  of  all 
their  markets  for  our  manufactures,  and  to  prevent  them,  one 
and  all,  from  ever  becoming  manufacturing  nations." 

In  the  course  of  this  debate,  as  in  similar  debates,  before 
and  since,  much  was  said,  by  the  opponents  of  the  tariff,  of 
its  injurious  effects  upon  the  laboring  classes,  and  especially 
upon  the  agricultural  portion  of  the  community.  In  reply  to 
this  objection, 

Mr.  Robbins,  of  R.  I.,  said  :  Consider,  again,  the  demand 
which  these  manufactures  make  for  the  labor  of  the  country, 
and  the  effect  of  that  labor  in  improving  the  condition  of  the 
laboring  classes,  and  in  producing  and  augmenting  the  na- 
tional wealth.  Are  the  laboring  classes  of  this  nation  few  in 
numbers  ?  In  numbers,  they  far  exceed  all  other  classes  put 
together.  Is  it  no  recommendation  of  this  policy  that  it 
makes  them  happy,  while  they  make  their  country  rich  ? 

This  policy,  then,  will  give  us  these  manufactures  as  its 
primary  effect.  Now,  what  will  be  the  effect  of  this  effect  ? 
— the  effect,  I  mean  of  manufactures  ?  In  the  first  place,  it 
will  be  to  create  a  market  for  our  agriculture  by  the  same 
policy — a  market,  of  the  magnitude  and  effect  of  which,  those 
who  have  not  reflected  upon  the  subject  can  have  no  adequate 
idea  ;  a  market  sufficient  for  all  our  agriculture  as  it  now  is, 
and  all  it  may  be  hereafter  ;  a  market  not  confined  to  the 
sea-board,  and  a  few  ports,  but  diffused  all  over  our  country, 
wherever  there  is  a  waterfall,  wherever  there  is  a  bed  of 
coal,  wherever  coal  may  be  water-borne  ;  a  market  that, 
with  the  facilities  of  intercommunication  which  the  country 


1632.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  253 

may  have,  and  ought  to  have,  will  be  brought  to  every  man's 
door.  Wherever  manufactures  are  planted,  they  change  the 
face  of  nature,  and  the  condition  of  the  whole  surrounding 
country,  and  by  means  of  the  market  they  create. 

Ask  the  agriculturists  within  the  sphere  of  those  markets 
to  give  up  this  policy  :  you  might  as  well  ask  them  to  give 
up  their  freeholds.  You  might  tear  them  from  the  one  as 
easily  as  from  the  other  ;  and  those  of  us  who  represent  them 
here,  be  assured,  are  far  behind  them  in  zeal  for  its  contiim 
ance.  Why  is  it,  that,  as  manufactures  have  multiplied  and 
extended  themselves,  this  policy  has  gained  friends,  and 
particularly  with  the  agricultural  population  ?  It  is  be- 
cause they  have  been  made  to  feel  its  benefits.  It  has  made 
them  proselytes  by  conferring  benefits.  They  see  these  manu- 
factures putting  every  thing  in  motion  around  them,  evoking 
and  evolving  all  the  dormant  energies  of  the  place  and  so- 
ciety ;  the  old  and  the  young,  females  as  well  as  males,  all 
employed.  It  is  one  scene  of  universal  activity. 

In  relation  to  the  effect  of  the  tariff  upon  commerce,  Mr. 
R.  said  :  Of  all  the  strange  ideas  thrown  out  in  this  debate, 
is  the  supposed  tendency  of  this  policy  to  diminish  our  com- 
merce, and  particularly  the  foreign.  The  truth  is,  that  it 
does  not  diminish,  but  augments  our  foreign  commerce.  The 
effect  is  not  immediately  so  visible  in  the  tunnagre  employed, 
as  in  the  increased  value  of  that  commerce.  The  tunnage 
appears  less  in  proportion  to  the  commerce,  on  account  of 
the  great  improvement,  of  late,  in  the  structure  of  merchant 
vessels  ;  some  of  which  carry  nearly  50  per  cent,  more  of 
cotton,  for  instance,  to  the  tun  than  before  that  improvement. 
This  policy,  in  the  first  place,  by  creating  manufactures, 
creates  a  demand  and  a  commerce  for  the  foreign  supply  of 
materials  necessary  to  their  fabrics,  greater  than  the  com- 
merce which  it  displaces  and  supersedes.  This  policy,  in 
the  next  place,  by  increasing  the  ability  of  the  country  to 
consume,  in  the  same  proportion  increases  the  foreign  de- 
mand for  all  the  supplies  that  foreign  countries  must  furnish  : 
for  consumption  is  always  regulated  by  income.  I  pray  gen- 
tlemen to  look  at  the  effect  of  this  policy  on  the  foreign  com- 
merce of  England,  and  examine  the  tables  of  that  commerce. 
Vast  as  that  is,  you  will  see  that  nine-tenths  of  it  is  the  fruit 
of  this  policy.  To  illustrate  its  effect,  Mr.  R.  here  referred  to 
Worcester  county,  Mass.,  in  which  its  infant  woolen  manu- 
factories had  already  created  an  annual  demand  for  indigo, 
madder,  dye-woods,  olive  oil,  hard  soap,  &c.,  to  the  amount 


254  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  X 

of  $188,756.  The  tunnage  required  in  foreign  commerce  by 
one  single  manufacture,  in  one  county,  is  more  than  would 
be  required  to  import  all  the  woolens  that  we  ever  imported 
from  England  in  any  one  year  ;  yet  we  are  told  this  policy  is 
to  diminish  our  foreign  commerce. 

But  the  effect  of  this  policy  on  foreign  commerce,  is  small 
compared  to  its  effect  upon  the  domestic  commerce.  The 
gentleman  from  Tennessee  admits  that  the  coasting  tunnage 
is  increased,  and  well  he  may,  for  it  has  doubled  within  a 
few  years.  But  surely  he  need  not  be  informed  that  the 
coasting  tunnage  employed  is  no  criterion  even  of  the  coasting 
commerce  :  for  the  cargoes  have  increased  in  value  much 
faster  than  the  tunnage  has  increased  in  amount.  The  coast- 
ing vessel  that  transported  lumber  and  other  gross  products, 
now  transports  cotton.  The  200,000  bales  required  by  our 
manufactures,  is  of  more  value  than  the  whole  of  the  coast- 
ing commerce  was,  or  would  be  without  them.  Then  reflect 
upon  the  value  of  the  returns  to  the  coasting  trade  from  that 
very  cotton,  in  cotton  fabrics,  to  a  four-fol'd  amount  of  the 
cotton  itself,  and  you  see  at  once,  that  the  growing  amount 
of  the  tunnage  employed  is  no  criterion  of  the  growing 
amount  of  the  coasting  commerce.  But  the  coasting  com- 
merce itself,  though  some  criterion,  is  no  measure  of  the 
total  amount  of  the  domestic  commerce.  The  separate  in- 
ternal trade,  by  internal  communication,  is  to  be  added, 
vastly  exceeding  the  amount  of  the  coasting. 

Here  I  beg  leave  to  recur  again  to  the  woolen  manufac- 
ture of  Worcester  county,  now,  for  the  illustration  of  the  ef- 
fect of  this  policy  on  the  domestic,  as  I  then  did  for  its  effect 
on  the  foreign  trade.  There  is  required  for  the  supply  of 
that  manufacture,  annually,  2,530,000  pounds  of  wool  ;  52,- 
112  pounds  of  cotton,  for  warp  of  satinets  ;  190,000  pounds 
of  pot  and  pearl  ashes  ;  21,300  pounds  of  pastel  and  woad  ; 
75,517  pounds  of  alum,  copperas,  blue  vitriol,  and  other 
chemicals  ;  61,395  pounds  of  glue  and  pates  ;  3,176  barrels 
of  soft  soap  ;  11,700,000  teasels  for  napping  cloth  ;  454  bar- 
rels of  lime  and  bran  ;  10,323  cords  of  wood,  for  fuel ;  275 
tuns  of  mineral  coal  ;  leather  for  belts  and  repairs,  worth 
$5,191.  Let  it  be  noted,  that  in  this  table  is  omitted  the 
lumber  and  other  materials  employed  in  the  factory 
buildings,  and  in  their  machinery.  And  here  it  may  be  re- 
ir.arked,  that  these  manufactures  create  more  demand  and  a 
better  market  for  the  article  of  lumber,  with  which  our 
country  so  abounds,  than  all  the  West  Indies,  and  all  other 


1832.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  255 

foreign  markets  of  the  world,  put  together.  We  see,  then, 
that  manufactures,  valuable  as  they  are  in  themselves,  as  an 
end,  are  still  more  valuable  as  means  to  other  ends — as  the 
means  of  giving'  a  spring  and  impulse  to  agriculture,  be- 
yond all  otlior  moans  ;  and  as  the  means  of  extending  the 
sphere  and  augmenting  the  value  of  our  commerce,  both 
foreign  and  domestic,  beyond  any  other  and  all  other  possi- 
ble means. 

Mr.  Marcy,  of  N.  Y.,  said  he  had  voted  against  striking  out 
Mr.  Clay's  resolution,  because  he  did  not  approve  of  the 
amendment  of  Mr.  Hayne  proposed  to  be  inserted  in  lieu 
thereof;  but  he  did  not  approve  the  entire  resolution  of  Mr. 
Clay.  He  concurred  with  him  so  far  as  it  went  to  remove 
the  duties  from  non-protected  articles,  as  they  had  been 
called,  which  were  objects  of  common  consumption — articles 
which  all  classes  of  our  citizens  were  in  the  habit  of  using. 
But  the  resolution  was  general  in  its  operation  upon  non-pro- 
tected articles  ;  and  would  take  off  the  duties  from  such  as 
were  consumed  only  by  the  rich  and  luxurious.  He  shouid 
therefore,  when  another  amendment  should  have  been  dis- 
posed of,  propose  an  amendment,  the  effect  of  which  would 
be  to  retain  a  duty,  but  less  than  that  now  imposed,  on  arti- 
cles usually  denominated  luxuries,  as  well  as  on  wines  and 
silks.  The  abolition  of  all  duties  on  articles  of  luxury,  while, 
for  the  purposes  of  protection,  duties  were  continued  on  arti- 
cles consumed  by  the  less  wealthy  and  the  laboring-  classes, 
was  wrong  in  principle,  and  would  strengthen  the  opposition 
to  the  policy  of  protection.  As  a  friend  of  protection,  he  felt 
unwilling  to  do  any  thing  that  .would  strengthen  the  hands 
of  those  who  would  destroy  it  altogether.  The  whole  tariff 
required  revision  ;  and  there  was  no  good  reason  for  not 
making  it  at  this  time.  Mr.  M.  would  add  to  Mr.  Clay's  re- 
solution, after  wines  and  silks,  as  follows  :  "  And  that  the 
duties  on  articles  imported  into  the  United  States,  similar  to 
such  as  are  made  or  produced  therein,  ought  to  be  so  gradu- 
ated as  not  to  exclude  such  foreign  articles  from  coming  into 
competition  in  our  markets  with  those  made  and  produced  in 
the  United  States  ;  but  to  establish  the  competition  on  such 
terms  as  shall  give  a  reasonable  encouragement  and  protec- 
tion to  the  manufactures  and  products  of  the  United  States." 

The  habit  of  judging  of  the  favorable  or  unfavorable  effects 
of  the  protective  policy,  from  the  fall  or  rise  of  the  money 
prices  of  the  articles  subjected  to  duty,  was  thus  noticed  : 

Mr.  Sprague,  of  Maine,  said  :     Labor  is  the  best  measure 


256  THE  PROTECTIVE    SYSTEM.  [Chap.  X. 

of  exchangeable  value.  A  want  of  due  regard  to  this  im- 
portant truth,  has  occasioned  infinite  perplexity  and  confu- 
sion in  speeches  and  writings  upon  the  tariff.  In  order  to 
determine  its  merits  or  demerits,  they  inquire  whether  the 
price  of  its  objects  has  been  increased  or  diminished.  On 
the  one  side  is  selected  a  class  of  articles,  the  price  of  which 
is  undoubtedly  increased  by  the  imposts  ;  and  on  the  otter, 
a  list  of  products  which  are  in  no  degree  affected  by  the  du- 
ties in  the  statute  book.  From  the  one  set  of  examples  it  is 
vehemently  insisted  that  imposts  always  enhance  the  price  ; 
and  from  the  other  as  confidently  that  they  never  have  that 
effect.  Such  reasoners,  starting  from  different  premises,  and 
diverging  as  they  progress  in  their  course,  can  never  come 
at  any  common  conclusion. 

In  order  to  ascertain  whether  the  tariff  laws  are  beneficial 
or  injurious,  they  inquire  whether  they  do  or  do  not  increase 
the  price  of  articles,  and  to  this  devote  all  their  energies,  as 
'f  the  answer  were  decisive  of  the  primary  question.  But 
the  response,  if  it  were  given,  would  not  be  conclusive,  be- 
cause the  price  about  which  they  dispute  is  measured  by 
money,  that  is,  the  precious  metals — no  permanent  standard, 
but  themselves  measured  by  something  else. 

Why  is  gold  more  highly  appreciated  than  iron  ?  Not  for 
its  comparative  utility  ;  not  on  account  of  the  necessary  and 
useful  purposes  to  which  it  can  be  applied  ;  for  if  mankind 
•were  to  be  wholly  deprived  of  one  of  these  metals,  they  had 
better,  by  a  thousand  times,  dispense  with  the  former  than 
the  latter.  But  it  is  because  both  being  desirable,  the  diffi- 
culty, the  labor  of  obtaining  the  one  is  so  much  greater  than 
that  of  procuring  the  other. 

Labor,  then,  is  the  best  measure  of  exchangeable  value, 
arid  the  best  standard  by  which  to  determine  the  benefits  or 
the  evils  of  a  tariff  system  ;  price,  in  its  usual  acceptation, 
having  reference  to  a  fallacious  standard — money.  A  course 
of  legislation  which  diminishes  the  price  of  articles,  may  be 
injurious  to  the  people,  while  one  that  increases  it  may  be 
beneficial  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  law  which  diminishes 
price  may  benefit,  and  one  which  increases  it,  injure,  the  pub- 
lic. Thus,  if  you  diminish  the  price  of  the  articles  which  a 
farmer  or  mechanic  wishes  to  procure,  but,  at  the  same  time, 
depress  still  more  the  commodities  which  he  has  to  give  in 
exchange,  you  injure  him  ;  while,  if  you  enhance  the  price  of 
those  thinrs  which  he  purchases,  but,  by  the  same  act,  in- 
crease still  m  ire  that  of  the  articles  which  he  is  to  give  in 
xe.uru,  you  coufer  a  benefit. 


1832.1  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  257 

For  what  object  is  labor  performed  ?  Is  it  not  to  procure 
the  comforts  and  conveniences  of  life  ?  This  is  the  para- 
mount end  ;  money  is  to  be  desired  only  as  the  means.  With 
reference  to  this  subject,  therefore,  that  system  of  legislation 
is  best  which  gives  to  labor  the  greatest  amount  of  com- 
forts and  conveniences.  This  is  a  cardinal  principle  which 
should  be  kept  constantly  in  view — a  polar  star  to  guide  our 
course  through  the  pathless,  boundless,  stormy,  tumultuous 
ocean— of  the  tariff. 

It  has  been  said,  that  if  the  mechanic  and  farmer  were 
asked  to  pay  the  increase  of  price  by  reason  of  the  duty,  sep- 
arately, they  would  object.  That,  sir,  depends  wholly  upon 
the  form  of  the  question.  If,  when  the  hatter  is  about  to  pur- 
chase a  pair  of  boots,  he  is  asked,  Are  you  willing  to  pay 
fifty  cents  additional  for  the  duty  ?  he  would  doubtless  an- 
swer, No  :  but  if  he  were  asked,  Are  you  willing  to  pay  that 
amount,  if  you  can  thereby  obtain  a  dollar  more  for  the  hat 
which  you  must,  directly  or  indirectly,  give  in  exchange  ? 
his  answer  would  be  in  the  affirmative.  The  farmer  wishes 
to  procure  cloth — he  takes  his  wheat  or  wool  to  market.  Are 
you  willing  to  pay  five  cents  a  yard  as  duty  ?  No.  But  sup- 
pose you  can  thereby  obtain  ten  cents  more  for  the  quantity 
of  grain  or  wool  necessary  to  purchase  the  yard  ;  will  you 
then  consent  ?  Certainly.  So  of  every  other  article.  The 
true  question  is,  in  what  manner  will  the  products  of  his  la- 
bor procure  most  of  the  commodities  which  he  wishes  to  ob- 
tain in  exchange  for  it  ? 

After  some  further  debate,  on  the  22d  of  March,  the  ques- 
tion was  taken  on  Mr.  Clay's  resolution,  with  sundry  modifi- 
cations, and  decided  in  the  affirmative  :  Yeas,  27  ;  nays  10 
— and  the  subject  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Manu- 
factures. The  Committee  on  the  30th,  made  a  report,  in  part, 
with  a  bill  in  conformity  to  the  resolution.  The  bill  was  on 
the  same  day,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Dallas,  laid  on  the  table,  with 
the  understanding  that  it  should  remain  there,  until  a  reason- 
able time  had  been  allowed  to  the  Committee  to  make  a  re- 
port. 

On  the  1st  of  May,  Mr  Dickerson,  of  the  Committee  on 
Manufactures,  reported  a  bill  to  regulate  the  duties  on  im- 
ports. The  bill  was  taken  up,  and  certain  proposed  amend- 
ments ordered  to  be  printed,  and  the  bill  was  then  laid  on 
the  table. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives,  February  8th, 
Mr.  M'Dufrb,  from  the  Committee  of  Ways  arid  Moans,  re- 
ported "  a  bill  to  reduce  and  equalize  the  duties  on  imports." 


258  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  X. 

This  bill  proposed  to  reduce  to  25  per  cent,  the  duties  on 
iron  and  steel,  salt,  sugar,  cotton  bagging,  hemp,  flax,  and 
manufactures  of  iron,  cotton  and  wool,  until  the  30th  of  June, 
1833  ;  thereafter  18  j  per  cent,  to  be  charged  until  the  30th 
of  June,  1834;  and  thereafter,  12^  per  cent.  On  all  other 
goods,  a  duty  of  12 J  per  cent,  from  the  beginning,  except 
such  as  were  free  of  duty,  and  such  as  were  subject  to  du- 
ties of  less  than  12|  per  cent. 

The  bill  was  taken  up  on  the  28th  of  May,  and  supported 
by  Mr.  M'Duffie  in  a  speech  of  very  great  length,  in  which 
the  protective  policy  was  elaborately  discussed,  and  severely 
reprobated.  It  will  be  recollected  that  the  present  was  but 
a  few  months  before  measures  for  forcible  resistance  to  the 
tariff  were  taken  by  the  State  of  South  Carolina  ;  and  it  is 
not  strange  that  Mr.  M'Duffie  should  give  some  intimations 
of  the  course  contemplated  by  the  authorities  of  that  State. 
He  said  :  I  now  stand  up  before  you,  sir,  as  a  witness,  and 
I  give  testimony  in  the  presence  of  this  assembly,  and  in  the 
presence  of  that  God  to  whom  we  are  all  responsible,  that 
I  conscientiously  believe,  that,  if  this  question  be  not  adjust- 
ed at  this  session,  South  Carolina  will  not  submit  to  the  tar- 
iff five  months  from  the  date  of  our  adjournment.  I  beseecn 
•gentlemen,  therefore,  not  in  a  spirit  of  menaca,  but  of  admo- 
nition, and  "  more  in  sorrow  than  in  anger,"  to  pause  for  a 
moment,  and  to  calculate  the  consequences  which  may  possi- 
bly ensue.  I  will  not  permit  myself  to  believe  that  matters 
will  ever  reach  the  extremity  of  the  dissolution  of  the  Union. 
But  as  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  has  presented 
some  views  to  show  how  essentially  the  interests  of  the 
Southern  States  are  involved  in  the  Union,  I  will  briefly  pre- 
sent some  plain  statements  to  show  its  value  to  the  North- 
ern States. 

South  Carolina  is  fully  aware  of  the  responsibility  she  has 
assumed,  and  of  the  peril  she  must  encounter  ;  but  no  great 
object  can  be  accomplished  without  great  sacrifices.  Had  it 
not  been  for  the  heroic  spirit  of  Leonidas  and  his  immortal 
band,  who  devoted  themselves  at  Thermopylae  for  the  com- 
mon cause  of  Greece,  the  light  of  Grecian  liberty  might  have 
been  extinguished  forever,  and  the  destiny  of  mankind  en- 
tirely changed.  And  I  do  confidently  believe,  that  if  South 
Carolina  fails  in  the  struggle  she  is  now  waging,  the  brief 
days  of  American  liberty  will  be  numbered. 

Mr.  Crawford,  of  Pa.,  the  next  day  replied  in  an  argumen- 
tative speech,  in  support  of  the  protective  policy,  illustrating 


1832.J  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  259 

his  argument  with  statistics.  In  allusion  to  the  hostile  atti- 
tude which  South  Carolina  might  assume  towards  the  Gen- 
eral Government,  Mr.  C.  said  :  I  feel,  sir,  all  the  responsibil- 
ity of  the  times.  A  crisis,  iu  the  opinion  of  many  gentlemen, 
has  almost  arrived.  No  man  deplores  the  unhappy  state  of 
things  more  than  the  individual  who  now  addresses  you  ;  but 
with  the  settled  convictions  of  his  own  mind,  with  the  know- 
ledge which  he  has  of  the  interests  of  his  own  constituents, 
with  the  several  times  declared  and  unanimously  expressed 
sense  of  his  own  State  Legislature  before  him,  and  the  belief 
that  the  South  is  not  injured,  and  that  a  large  proportion  of 
the  country  is  greatly  benefited  by  the  American  system,  he 
can  not  desert  it.  Amid  the  difficulties  around  me,  I  shall 
follow  the  only  safe  guide  of  life,  which  directs  me  to  do  my 
duty,  and  leave  the  consequences  to  the  intelligence  and 
patriotism  of  the  South,  and  to  God,  with  whom  rest  the  des- 
tinies of  man. 

On  the  next  day,  [May  30,]  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams,  from 
the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  rose  and  said  that  he  was 
instructed  by  that  Committee  to  move  that  the  bill  of  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  [that  reported  by  M'Duffie, 
then  under  consideration,]  should  be  laid  aside,  and  that  the 
bill  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  reported  by  himself, 
[Mr.  A.]  on  the  23d  instant,  be  taken  up. 

It  having  been  suggested  by  Mr.  Archer  that  Mr.  M'Duffie 
was  not  then  in  the  House,  and  that  it  was  due  to  him  that 
this  motion  should  not  be  pressed  in  his  absence  ;  and  sev- 
eral gentlemen  having  expressed  a  desire  to  reply  to  him  ; 
but  which,  it  was  thought  by  some,  would  not  be  then  in 
order  ;  and  it  having,  moreover,  been  suggested  that  the 
difficulty  could  be  avoided  by  a  motion  to  amend  the  bill  be- 
fore the  House,  which  would  take  precedence  over  the  motion 
to  lay  it  aside  ; — 

Mr.  Appleton,  of  Mass.,  moved  to  amend  it  by  striking  out 
the  first  section,  and  proceeded  to  address  the  House  at 
length  in  reply  to  Mr.  M'Duffie  ;  and  was  replied  to  the  next 
day  by  Mr.  Bouldin,  of  Va. 

On  the  5th  of  June,  the  bill  reported  by  Mr.  Adams  was 
taken  up  for  consideration,  when 

Mr.  Drayton,  of  S.  C.,  took  the  floor  in  opposition  to  the 
tariff,  and  was  followed  by  Mr.  Stewart,  of  Pa.,  who  moved 
to  strike  out  the  whole  of  the  bill  reported  by  the  Committee 
on  Manufactures,  after  the  enacting  clause,  and  to  insert  one 
which  he  offered  as  a  substitute. 


260  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  X 

It  may  here  be  remarked,  that  the  bill  reported  by  Mr. 
Adams  was  based  on  the  report  and  bill  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Manufactures  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
Mr.  M'Lane,  although  differing  somewhat  from  that  bill  ;  and 
it  was  in  several  particulars  objectionable  to  some  of  the 
friends  of  protection. 

Mr.  Stewart  said,  the  professed  object  of  the  bill  from  the 
Treasury  Department  was  twofold  :  1st.  The  reduction  cf 
the  revenue  to  the  wants  of  the  Government,  after  the  pay- 
ment of  the  public  debt.  2d.  The  reduction  of  taxes.  He 
thought  the  bill,  if  passed,  would  have  the  opposite  effect. 
Instead  of  reducing,  it  would  increase  the  revenue,  and  of 
course,  increase  taxation.  If  so,  it  must  be  abandoned  on  the 
principle  of  the  report  itself.  It  appeared  from  the  report  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  commerce,  that  the  imports, 
during  the  last  year,  had  increased  to  such  an  extent,  in  spite 
of  the  present  high  protection,  that  the  revenue  on  three 
items,  woolens,  cottons,  and  iron,  alone  would  amount,  even 
under  the  reduced  rate  of  duties  proposed,  to  $5,000,000  more 
than  the  revenue  derived  from  the  imports  of  the  same  arti- 
cles in  1830,  under  the  present  high  rate  of  duties.  The 
imports  of  woolens,  cottons,  and  iron  with  its  manufactures, 
amounted,  in  1830,  to  upwards  of  $19,500,000  ;  in  1831,  to 
upwards  of  $37,500,000.  The  import  of  woolen  goods  in- 
creased from  something  more  than  $5,000,000  to  upwards  of 
$13,000,000  ;  wool,  from  667,000  to  5,662,000  pounds  ;  cot- 
tons, from  $7,000,000  to  $16,000,000  ;  iron  and  its  manufac- 
tures, from  $5,000,000  to  $7,000,000.  If  the  imports  of  these 
articles,  under  the  existing  protection,  doubled  in  amount  last 
year,  reduce  the  duties  as  proposed  by  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment, and  what  will  be  the  result  ?  Will  not  the  imports  and 
the  revenue  be  largely  increased,  especially  when  it  is  recol- 
lected, that,  of  these  three  articles,  we  now  manufacture,  in 
this  country,  to  the  amount  of  $92,000,000  per  annum  ? 

Suppose,  now,  you  destroy,  by  this  bill,  only  one-third  of 
this  immense  production,  which  must  be  supplied  from  abroad, 
the  imports  would  be  more  than  doubled,  and  our  revenue 
>astly  increased.  If  the  imports  of  wool  increased  from  667- 
000  pounds,  in  1830,  to  5,662,000  in  1831,  with  a  protecting 
duty  of  82J  per  cent.,  what  will  it  be  next  year,  if  the  protec- 
tion be  reduced,  as  proposed  by  the  Secretary,  to  5  per  cent, 
on  coarse,  and  25  per  cent,  on  fine  wool  ?  Will  it  not  (as 
was  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  Mr.  Bates) 
put  the  knife  to  the  jugular  of  every  sheep  in  the  country  ? 


(832.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  261 

When  the  import  of  woolen  goods  has  increased  more  than 
twofold  in  the  last  year,  what  will  be  the  effect  if  the  duty 
is  reduced  to  less  than  half  its  present  amount  ?  Will  it  not 
result  in  the  total  and  absolute  destruction  of  the  woolen 
business  of  this  country  ?  And  this  is  but  one  item  in  the 
long  catalogue  of  interests  on  which  the  Secretary's  bill  had 
pronounced  the  sentence  of  death,  and  handed  over,  bound 
hand  and  foot,  to  the  British  executioners.  Why  not  also 
repeal  the  duty  of  25  cents  per  bushel  on  wheat,  and  import 
wheat  also  from  Egypt,  Poland,  and  the  Black  Sea,  and  pota- 
toes from  Ireland,  where  they  are  produced  much  cheaper 
than  here  ?  Quit  work,  buy  every  thing,  sell  nothing,  and 
grow  rich.  Flour  is  not  more  the  product  of  agriculture, 
than  cloth.  Wheat  and  wool  are  alike  the  product  of  agri- 
culture ;  the  one  is  manufactured  into  flour,  the  other  into 
cloth  ;  and  the  policy  that  recommends  the  importation  of 
the  one,  would  recommend  the  importation  of  the  other. 
Three-fourths  of  the  value  of  cloth  is  the  result  of  agriculture  : 
hence,  of  the  $13,000,000  sent  last  year  to  England  for  woolen 
goods,  more  than  $8,000,000  went  to  pay  for  wool,  the  sub- 
sistence of  labor,  and  other  agricultural  products  which  en- 
tered into  its  composition. 

England  would  give  millions  to  secure  the  passage  of 
either  the  bill  reported t  from  the  Treasury,  or  that  by  the 
Committee  of  Waj^s  and  Means.  The  Chairman  of  this  Com- 
mittee [Mr.  M'Duffie]  has  frankly  avowed  his  object  ;  it  is  to 
destroy  American,  and  make  way  for  British  manufactures, 
to  increase  the  importation  of  British  goods  and  the  exporta- 
tion of  American  specie  :  so  that  money  becoming  plentiful 
in  England,  prices  will  rise,  and  consequently  cotton  com- 
mand a  better  price  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  money  becom- 
ing scarce  in  the  North,  prices  would  fall,  and  they  would 
obtain  their  supplies  at  a  cheaper  rate  :  in  other  words,  his 
object  is  to  enrich  England  by  importing  her  goods,  and  im- 
poverish this  country  by  sending  our  money  to  pay  for  them. 

The  gentleman  frankly  admits,  however,  that  it  is  better 
for  the  American  farmer  to  pay  even  higher  prices  for  Ameri- 
can- manufactures,  because  he  gets  a  higher  price  for  his  pro- 
duce in  exchange.  But  this  will  not  do  ;  we  must  consent  to 
destroy  our  manufactures,  to  give  up  our  agriculture,  and  send 
our  money  to  England  to  induce  her  to  give  "two  cents  a 
pound  more  for  cotton."  And  if  our  manufactures  and  me- 
chanic arts  are  destroyed,  what  then  ?  It  is  an  easy  matter, 
the  gentleman  says  in  his  report,  for  "  a  hatter  or  a  shoe- 


262  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  (Chap.  I. 

maker  to  take  up  some  other  trade."     What  other  trade,  when 
all  are  alike  destroyed  ? 

Where  are  the  burdens  and  oppressions  complained  of  ? 
Why  this  perpetual  clamor  about  robbery  and  plunder,  resist- 
ance and  rebellion  ?  Our  manufacturers  now  supply  the 
South  with  cotton  goods  at  one-fourth  of  their  former  price  ; 
woolens  at  one-half ;  glass,  paper,  lead,  and  many  other  ar- 
ticles, at  one-third  of  their  former  cost  •,  and  this  is  oppres- 
sion !  I  hope  to  hear  no  more  about  "  glorious  rebellion." 
We  have  come  here  to  listen  to  reason,  not  threats.  This  is 
not  the  language  of  conciliation.  I  will  never  be  driven  from 
the  discharge  of  duty  by  threats  like  these,  nor  will  I  com- 
promise with  treason,  or  concede  any  thing  to  the  spirit  of 
rebellion.  The  more  we  yield,  the  more  will  it  demand,  un- 
til it  ends  in  resistance.  Such  a  spirit  must  be  met  at  once 
with  justice,  firmness,  and  decision.  This  is  the  only  true 
course  ;  and  I  hope  this  course  will  now  be  adopted. 

Instead  of  reducing  the  duties,  as  proposed  by  the  Secre- 
tary, on  wool  and  woolens,  cotton,  glass,  salt,  leather,  iron, 
and  their  manufactures,  Mr.  S.  said  he  would  increase  them 
gradually  until  the  market  was  completely  secure  to  the 
American  farmer  and  manufacturer  ;  he  would  encourage 
the  investment  of  capital  and  the  acquisition  of  skill ;  he 
would  extract  wealth  from  the  mines  of  the  mountains  ;  cov- 
er the  hills  and  valleys  with  flocks  and  herds  ;  fill  the  coun- 
try with  smiling  villages  ;  and  become  in  fact,  as  well  as  in 
name,  a  free  and  independent  people.  He  would  put  the  coun- 
try upon  its  own  resources  for  what  it  can  and  ought  to  pro- 
duce, instead  of  importing  it  ;  stimulate  domestic  instead  of 
foreign  industry  ;  diversify  labor  ;  promote  competition  ; 
break  down  monopoly  ;  increase  production  ;  diminish  prices  ; 
create  markets  for  agriculture  ;  and  save  the  millions  now 
sent  abroad. 

Mr.  Adams  explained  the  distinction  between  the  two  bills — 
that  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  reported  by  himself, 
and  the  substitute  offered  by  Mr.  Stewart.  The  essentially 
different  parts  of  the  two  bills  were  the  2d  section  of  the 
Committees'  bill,  and  the  3d  section  of  Mr.  Stewart's  -bill. 
Both  articles  had  respect  to  wool,  and  manufactures  of  wool. 
The  former  assumed  the  principle  that  the  present  system  of 
graduated  minimums  was  to  be  abandoned,  and  its  place 
supplied  by  a  scheme  of  ad  valorem  duties,  accompanied,  in 
some  cases,  by  specific  duties  also.  But  in  Mr.  Stewart's 
bill,  the  system  of  minimums  was  retained.  According 


r  • 


1832.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  263 

to  the  present  system  of  miniirmms,  there  was  imposed  a 
duty  of  14  cents  per  square  yard  on  all  manufactures  of 
wool  costing  at  the  place  whence  imported,  33J  cents.  Oth- 
ers, costing  50  cents  or  under,  were  to  be  taken  to  have  cost 
50  cents.  The  next  minimum  was  $1,  then  $2  50,  then  $4, 
and  lastly,  all  cloths  over  $4.  So  that  any  woolen  manufac- 
ture the  cost  of  which  should  exceed,  though  by  one  cent, 
any  of  these  minimum  values,  was  to  be  deemed  to  be  worth 
the  sum  in  the  next  minimum  above  it.  Thus,  cloth  costing 
$1  and  one  cent,  was,  by  the  present  law,  taken  to  be  worth 
$2  50,  and  a  duty  of  45  per  cent,  was  laid  on  that  fictitious 
value.  This  was  considered  by  the  Committee  on  Manufac- 
tures as  one  of  the  greatest  grievances  inflicted  by  the  tariff 
system  ;  arid  it  was  that  of  which  the  citizens  of  the  South- 
ern States  most  loudly  complained. 

The  bill  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania, 
not  only  proposed  the  continuance  of  this  system,  but  an  ag- 
gravation of  it.  It  dropped  the  $1  minimum  entirely,  and 
provided  that  all  manufactures  of  wool  which  had  cost  more 
than  50  cents,  should  be  deemed  and  held  to  have  cost  $2  50. 
It  provided  also,  an  increase  of  the  present  scale  of  duties. 
The  duties,  instead  of  ranging,  as  at  present,  from  45  to  112 
per  cent.,  would,  under  the  gentleman's  bill,  range  45  to  260 
or  270  per  cent.  This  did  not  look  much  like  concession  to 
the  South. 

Mr.  A.  said  he  ought,  in  justice,  to  observe  that,  since  the 
bill  proposed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  had  been  made 
public,  and  also  that  proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Manu- 
factures, there  had  been  much  evidence  received  from  that 
part  of  the  Union  most  interested  in  the  cloth  manufacture, 
that  they  would  greatly  prefer  an  adherence  to  the  system  of 
minimums.  The  Committee  on  Manufactures  were  not  aware 
of  this.  But  they  had,  nevertheless,  determined  on  the  pro- 
priety of  abandoning  it.  It  was  now  for  the  House  to  deter- 
mine which  of  these  two  principles  they  would  sanction. 

In  other  respects,  the  bill  from  the  Committee  proposed  a 
reduction  of  duties  not  quite  equal  to  that  provided  by  the 
bill  of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania.  The  Committee 
proposed  to  reduce  them  not  more  than  10  or  12  per  cent 
from  present  rates.  The  other  bill  proposed  to  reduce  them 
20  per  cent.,  though  by  two  successive  operations — 10  per 
cent,  in  January  next,  and  10  per  cent,  the  January  following. 

There  was  one  other  point  on  which  the  Committee  had 
hoped  that  there  would  be  a  concession,  on  the  part  of  the 


264  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  fChap.  X 

manufacturing  interest,  to  the  wishes  and  interests  of  the 
South,  that  might  be  acceptable  to  that  part  of  the  Union. 
He  referred  to  a  total  remission  of  duties  on  coarse  wool  and 
coarse  woolens.  That  kind  of  goods  peculiarly  used  at  the 
South,  was  one  on  which  the  duties  might  most  easily  be 
remitted.  It  now  remained  for  this  House  to  determine 
which  of  the  two  systems  they  would  adopt. 

The  debate  was  continued  upon  the  general  question  of 
the  tariff,  and  upon  amendments  proposed  by  several  gentle- 
men. The  principal  speakers  in  support  of  the  protective 
policy,  were,  Messrs.  Davis,  Choate,  Bates,  and  Everett,  of 
Mass.;  Denny  and  Sutherland,  of  Pa.;  Evans,  of  Maine  ;  Bur- 
ges,  of  R.  I.;  Young,  of  Ct.";  Billiard  and  Thomas,  of  Lou. 
Those  who  spoke  in  opposition  were,  Messrs.  Mitchell,  of 
S.  C.;  Bell,  of  Tenn.;  Clay  and  Lewis,  of  Ala.;  Wilde  and 
Clayton,  of  Ga. 

This  debate,  like  others  upon  the  same  subject  on  previous 
revisions  of  the  tariff,  was  able,  interesting,  and  animated. 
We  give  one  or  two  extracts  from  replies  to  representations 
made  by  Southern  members  of  the  effect  of  the  tariff  upon 
the  South. 

Mr.  Davis,  of  Mass.,  said  :  The  complaints  of  wrong  and 
injustice  come  chiefly  from  South  Carolina.  Will  the  remedy 
she  proposes  heal  the  wound  ?  Will  an  abandonment  of  the 
protective  policy  raise  the  price  of  cotton  ?  American  cotton 
now  brings  as  much  in  Liverpool  as  West  India  or  South 
American.  How  can  you  make  it  bring  more  ?  Will  the  de- 
struction of  manufactures  make  the  poor  exhausted  lands  of 
South  Carolina  as  productive  as  the  virgin  soils  of  the  South- 
west ?  Will  such  an  event  make  goods  cheaper,  and  thus 
ease  the  consumer  ?  .  .  .  If  we  were  to  stop  producing, 
would  the  articles  we  produce  become  cheaper  ?  Take,  for 
example,  sugar.  We  produce  100,000  hogsheads  annually. 
While  we  produce  this,  the  planters  of  Cuba  and  other  places 
pursue  the  business  precisely  as  if  we  had  not  entered  into 
it ;  for  who  can  stop  the  operations  of  a  farm  ?  The  conse- 
quence is,  our  production  brings  into  market  a  greater  quan- 
tity than  would  otherwise  be  made  ;  and  this  redundance 
has  actually  reduced  the  price  in  the  foreign  market  from  12 
cents  to  4  and  5  cents  a  pound.  Sir,  I  recently  saw  an  essay, 
written  to  prove  that  we  ought  to  put  an  end  to  the  produc- 
tion of  sugar,  because  we  were  ruining  the  planters  of  Cuba 
by  the  competition.  If  we  should  cease  to  produce  sugar, 
would  not  the  diminished  quantity  raise  the  price  ? 


t832.)  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  205 

Take  also  cotton  goods.  We  produce  annually  at  least 
27  millions  worth,  and  import  about  8  millions  worth.  If 
this  vast  Limie  production  should  stop,  would  goods  be 
cheaper  ?  It  is  plain  they  would  not,  unless  there  should  be 
an  accession  of  capital  somewhere  else  equal  to  what  is 
thrown  out  of  business  here.  Where  is  such  accession  to 
come  from  ?  Is  not  the  labor  of  foreign  countries  now 
pressed  with  employ  ?  Has  not  the  reduction  in  wages 
made  it  necessary  for  every  one  who  works  for  bread  to  re- 
double his  exertions  to  live  ?  And  has  not  the  effect  thus 
been  to  increase  production  instead  of  diminishing  it  ?  This 
is  apparent  from  the  state  of  the  markets  ;  for  they  are 
crowded  with  goods.  Nothing  can  be  more  obvious  than 
that  stopping  our  mills  would  be  a  relief  to  the  English,  by 
placing  them  back  to  where  they  were  before  we  interfered  ; 
und  it  would,  to  a  considerable  extent,  enable  them  to  raise 
their  wages  and  their  prices.  The  ground  I  repose  on  is, 
thai  home  competition  has  reduced  prices,  and  its  cessation  will  raise 
them. 

A  new  doctrine  appears  to  have  arisen  about  this  time, 
which  was  declared  in  debate  by  Southern  members.  It  is, 
that  the  import  duty  is  equivalent  to  an  export  duty,  and  falls 
on  the  producer  of  cotton. 

Mr.  Davis  said  :  The  doctrine  is  again  repeated,  that  the 
producers  of  exports  pay  the  duties  on  imports.  This  again 
is  to  show  sectional  injustice,  because  the  South  is  supposed 
to  export  more  largely  than  the  rest  of  the  Union.  This  pro- 
position is,  on  the  face  of  it,  so  mysterious  and  blind,  that  it 
requires  a  better  argument  in  support  of  it  than  I  have  ever 
se'on  to  render  it  plausible.  It  amounts  to  this  :  A  farmer 
in  Ohio  or  Pennsylvania  raises  and  sells  one  hundred  bushels 
of  wheat,  which  is  ultimately  made  into  flour,  exported  to 
Cuba,  and  a  quantity  of  coffee  is  bought  with  the  avails  ; 
th'B  farmer  pays  the  duty  on  the  coffee  :  can  you  persuade 
ariy  man  in  his  senses  that  he  does  any  such  thing  ?  And 
yet  this  is  what  the  planters,  or  rather  the  supporters  of  this 
new  theory,  allege  they  do.  They  aver,  that,  although  a 
planter  raises  cotton,  sells  it  in  the  market,  and  pockets  his 
money  ;  yet,  if  the  cotton  is  eventually  exported,  and  foreign 
goods  are  bought  with  the  avails,  the  planter  actually  pays 
the  duty  on  these  goods,  though  he  is  as  ignorant  of  the  cot- 
ton, and  every  thing  that  pertains  to  it,  after  the  sale,  as  you 
or  I,  Mr.  Chairman.  The  absurdity  of  the  doctrine  is  too  ob- 
vious to  require  an  argument  to  refute  it.  The  course  of 

12 


266  THE  PKOTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  X. 

trade  shows  that  cotton  is  burdened  with  no  such  tax,  direct 
or  indirect.  It  goes  free  out  of  the  country  ;  and  the  planter 
here  gets  as  much  for  the  article  in  the  home  market  as  can 
be  obtained  for  it  in  foreign  countries,  saving  the  charges  of 
exportation,  come  from  where  it  may.  He  pockets  this 
money  ;  and  no  one  has  the  power  to  demand  any  portion  of 
it  for  public  use  ;  it  is  his  own.  A  free  trade  exists  between 
England  and  the  West  Indies  ;  there  is  no  duty  on  imports 
to  the  colon  jes.  Now,  can  a  planter  in  Jamaica  get  any 
more  for  cotton  of  a  given  quality  than  a  planter  of  Ala- 
bama ?  It  is  well  known  to  every  one  within  reach  of  my 
voice  that  he  can  not.  Does  it  not  follow  lhat  the  duties  on 
imports  produce  no  effect  on  the  price  of  cotton  ?  And  so  it 
is  with  all  produce. 

Mr.  Bullard,  of  Louisiana,  though  a  Southerner,  repudiated 
the  doctrine.  Now,  sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  when  I  go  to  market 
with  my  crop,  I  receive  the  market  price  in  money.  I  do 
what  I  please  with  the  money.  I  can  take  it  in  specie  and 
bury  it,  or  employ  it  in  the  purchase  of  slaves  and  additional 
lands,  or  in  paying  the  expenses  of  my  family.  I  meet,  as 
competing  purchasers,  the  English,  French,  and  American 
manufacturers.  The  demand  and  the  supply  at  the  time  es- 
tablish the  price.  Does  the  French  manufacturer  pay  you 
twenty  per  cent,  more  because  the  cotton  goes  to  France  to 

Bay  for  articles  which  pay  a  less  duty  on  their  importation  ? 
oes  the  English  purchaser  deduct  45  per  cent,  when  he 
makes  his  bargain  with  you,  because  English  cloths  or  cut- 
lery are  subjected  to  that  rate  of  duty  ?  After  tne  sale,  the 
fluctuation  of  price,  or  the  ultimate  destination  of  the  cotton, 
does  not  affect  the  planter.  To  him  it  is  of  no  importance 
whether  his  cotton  is  sent  to  Europe  as  a  remittance  to  pay 
for  importations,  or  coastwise,  to  be  manufactured  or  con- 
sumed in  the  United  States. 

If,  then,  the  producer,  as  such,  is  not  directly  taxed  in  the 
sale  of  his  staple,  it  must  follow  that  the  only  operation  of 
the  tariff  injurious  to  the  South,  is  either  the  burden  it  im- 
poses on  consumption,  or  by  paralyzing  the  powers  of  pro- 
duction. Its  effect  in  the  last  sixteen  years,  if  it  had  dis- 
couraged production,  would  have  exhibited  itself  somewhere 
How  has  it  operated  ?  At  the  date  of  the  tariff  of  1816,  the 
production  of  cotton  in  the  United  States  was  110,256,289 
pounds,  of  which  about  27,000,000  wore  manufactured  at 
home,  and  the  remainder  exported.  In  1830,  the  production 
had  risen  to  376,000,000,  of  which  77,000,000  were  manufao 


1832.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  267 

tured  in  the  United  States.  Here  you  have,  in  fifteen  years, 
an  increased  production  of  about  265,000,000  pounds.  One 
would  think  this  fact  alone  would  go  far  towards  accounting 
for  the  fall  of  prices,  and  certainly  proves  that  production 
has  not  been  discouraged. 

The  debate  on  the  general  question  of  the  tariff  continued 
until  the  16th  of  June,  after  which,  the  House  was  chiefly  oc- 
cupied in  settling  the  details  of  the  bill.  The  amendments 
proposed  were  numerous,  showing  that  great  diversity  of 
opinion  prevailed  in  that  body  :  and  it  was  not  until  the 
27th  of  June  that  it  was  ordered  to  a  third  reading.  This 
was  done  by  a  vote  of  122  to  65.  The  next  day,  the  bill  was 
read  the  third  time  ;  and  the  question  being  on  its  passage, 

Mr.  M'Duffie  rose,  and  again  addressed  the  House  at  length 
in  opposition  to  the  bill. 

The  bill  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  131  to  65,  as  follows  : 

Maine :  Yeas,  6 ;  nay,  1.  New  Hampshire  :  Yeas,  5.  Massachusetts  : 
Yeas,  4  ;  nays,  8.  Rhode  Island :  Nays,  2.  Connecticut :  Yeas,  2 ;  nays, 
&  Vermont :  Nays,  3.  New  York :  Yeas,  26  ;  nays.  2.  New  Jersey  : 
Yeas,  3  ;  nays,  3.  Pennsylvania:  Yeas,  14;  nays,  12.  Delaware:  Nay,  1. 
Maryland:  Yeas,  8.  Virginia:  Yeas,  11 ;  nays,  8.  North  Carolina :  Yeas, 
8;  nays,  4.  South  Carolina:  Yeas,  3;  nays,  6.  Georgia:  Yea,  1;  nays, 
6.  Kentucky:  Yeas,  9;  nays,  3.  Tennessee:  Yeas,  9.  Ohio:  Yeas,  12. 
Louisiana :  Yea,  1 ;  nays,  2.  Indiana :  Yeas,  3.  Illinois  :  Yea,  1.  Mis- 
sissippi: Yea,  1.  Alabama:  Yeas,  2;  nay,  1.  Missouri:  Yea,  1. 

The  above  vote,  it  will  be  seen,  on  comparison,  differs  ma- 
terially from  the  votes  on  previous  tariff  bills,  for  the  reason, 
as  the  reader  will  have  perceived  from  the  debates,  that  some 
of  the  provisions  of  the  bill  were  not  satisfactory  to  all  the 
friends  of  protection.  The  reduction  of  the  duty  on  iron  was 
disrelished  by  some  of  the  Pennsylvania  members.  The 
abolition  of  the  entire  duty  on  coarse  wool  valued  at  8  cents 
or  under  per  pound,  rendered  it  objectionable  to  others.  The 
minimum  principle  so  strenuously  insisted  on  by  many  on 
former  occasions,  as  necessary  to  guard  against  frauds,  was, 
in  the  case  of  woolen  goods,  almost  entirely  given  up  ;  but 
its  friends  received  what  was  by  some  considered  an  equiva- 
lent, namely,  a  home  valuation.  Instead  of  estimating  du- 
ties on  the  prices  at  which  the  goods  were  invoiced,  the  goods 
were  to  be  appraised  by  appraisers  in  our  own  ports.  Al- 
though it  was  approved  by  few  Southern  members,  yet,  be- 
ing cfcemed  preferable,  on  the  whole,  to  the  bill  which  it  was 
to  supersede,  many  of  them  voted  for  it  on  the  principle  of 
choosing  the  less  of  two  evils. 
The  bill  was  passed  by  the  Senate  with  some  amendments, 


268  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  X. 

to  h  part  of  which  the  House  disagreed.  The  Senate  pro- 
posed a  conference.  A  conference  was  had  ;  and  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  part  of  the  Senate  recommended  that  they  re- 
cede from  all  the  amendments  disagreed  to  by  the  House  ; 
which  recommendation  was  agreed  to  ;  and  the  bill  was 
passed.  The  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  before  it  was 
returned  to  the  House,  was  32  to  16. 

Thus  was  ended  another  contest  on  a  question  which  had 
long  agitated  the  public  mind — a  contest  which,  however, 
not  only  failed  to  give  quiet  to  the  country,  but  was  followed 
by  that  extraordinary  and  memorable  event,  theTattenipt  of  a 
State  to  carry  out  a  doctrine  which  her  statesmen  had  for 
years  asserted,  both  in  and  t  out  of  Congress — NULLIFICATION — 
the  right  of  any  single  State  to  resist  any  law  of  Congress 
which  the  authorities  of  such  State  should  deem  to  be  repug- 
nant to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 


1832.J  JACKSON  ON  PROTECTION.  269 


CHAPTER    XI. 

President  Jackson  on  protection.     Nullification  in  South  Carolina.    President's 
proclamation.     Mr:  Verplank's  bill  to  reduce  the  tariff.    Debate  thereon.  Force 
4  bill.     Adoption  by  the  House  of  Mr.  Clay's  compromise  bill,  pending  in  the  Sen- 
ate.  South  Carolina  pacified. 

IT  had  already  become  apparent,  that  the  protective  sys- 
tem was  about  to  be  subjected  to  a  trying  ordeal  ;  and  doubts 
of  its  permanency  had  begun  to  be  seriously  entertained. 
There  were  indications  of  its  becoming  strictly,  what  it  was 
in  a  great  measure  already,  a  party  question.  In  1824,  of 
the  four  candidates  for  the  Presidency,  neither  of  them  was 
supported  or  opposed,  it  is  believed,  on  account  of  his  being 
supposed  to  be  more  or  less  friendly  to  the  protective  policy 
than  his  competitors.  Gen.  Jackson  and  Mr.  Clay,  in  partic- 
ular, two  of  the  candidates,  had  given  unquestionable  evi- 
dence of  their  friendship  for  that  policy  ;  both  of  them,  the 
former  in  the  Senate,  the  latter  in  the  House,  having  taken 
high  and  firm  ground  in  favor  of  the  act  of  1824. 

Nor  had  this  question  become  as  yet  a  party  issue  in  the 
presidential  election  of  1828,  immediately  ensuing  the  passage 
of  the  tariff  act  of  that  year,  which  produced  such  high  ex- 
citement in  some  of  the  Southern  States.  Notwithstanding 
Gen.  Jackson's  well  known  advocacy  of  high  tariff  principles, 
he  received  the  unanimous  support  of  that  section  of  the 
Union.  He  had  given  an  unequivocal  pledge  of  his  adherence 
to  these  principles.  The  fact  that  his  election  was  advocated 
in  the  Western  States  on  this  account,  and  that  he  was  sup- 
ported at  the  South  where  these  measures  were  so  vehe- 
mently opposed,  gave  rise  to  some  suspicions  that  his  opin- 
ions had  undergone  some  change  Hence,  in  January,  1828, 
the  Senate  of  Indiana,  in  order  to  ascertain  his  real  senti- 
ments, that  the  people  might  vote  understandingly,  passed  a 
resolution  requesting  Governor  Ray  to  address  a  letter  to 
Gen.  Jackson,  "  inviting  him  to  state  explicitly  whether  he 
favored  that  construction  of  the  Constitution  which  author- 
izes Congress  to  appropriate  money  for  making  internal  im- 


270  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XI 

provements  in  the  several  States  ;  and  whether,  if  elected 
President  of  the  United  States,  he  would,  in  his  public  capac- 
ity, recommend,  foster,  and  support  the  American  system." 
In  his  reply  to  the  letter  of  Gov.  Ray,  he  said  :  "  I  pray 
you,  sir,  respectfully  to  state  to  the  Senate  of  Indiana,  that 
my  opinions,  at  present,  are  precisely  what  they  were  in  1823 
and  '24,  when  they  were  communicated,  by  letter,  to  Dr.  Cole- 
man,  of  North  Carolina,  and  when  I  voted  for  the  present  tar- 
iff and  appropriations  for  internal  improvement.'7 

In  1832,  however,  it  was  believed  that  he  had  to  some  ex- 
tent departed  from  the  views  expressed  before  his  election. 
He  had,  in  his  first  annual  Message,  [December,  1829,]  reit- 
erated, substantially,  the  sentiments  stated  in  his  Coleman 
letter,  that  the  protection  of  manufactures  was  necessary 
to  the  promotion  of  agriculture.  He  said  :  "  It  is  princi- 
pally as  manufactures  and  commerce  tend  to  increase  t/ie  value  of 
agricultural  productions,  and  extend  their  application  to 'the 
wants  and  comforts  of  society,  that  they  deserve  the  foster- 
ing care  of  Government."  And  as  the  extinction  of  the  pub- 
lic debt  was  at  hand,  after  which  there  would  be  a  surplus 
revenue,  from  the  tariff,  he  suggested  the  apportionment  of  this 
surplus  revenue  among  the  several  States,  and  the  expediency,  if 
the  measure  should  not  be  found  warranted  by  the  Constitu- 
tion, of  proposing  to  the  States  an  amendment  authorizing  it. 

In  his  next  annual  Message,  [December,  1830,]  he  again 
calls  the  attention  of  Congress  to  the  subject  of  the  "  adjust- 
ment of  the  tariff."  He  said  :  "  The  chief  object  of  duties 
should  be  revenue  ;"  but  "  they  may  be  so  adjusted  as  to  en- 
courage manufactures."  "  Objects  of  national  importance 
alone  ought  to  be  protected."  "  The  present  tariff  taxes 
some  of  the  comforts  of  life  unnecessarily  high  ;  it  under- 
takes to  protect,  interests  too  local  and  minute  to  justify  a 
general  exaction  ;  and  it  also  attempts  to  force  some  kinds 
of  manufactures  for  which  the  country  is  not  ripe."  And  he 
recommends  that  each  particular  interest  be  taken  up  "  singly 
for  deliberation." 

The  Committee  on  Manufactures,  of  which  Mr.  Mallary  was 
Chairman,  in  their  report  on  the  subject,  expressed  their  dis- 
eent  from  some  of  the  views  of  the  President.  They  consid- 
ered the  language  above  quoted  as  indicating  a  lowering  of 
his  sentiments  on  this  question,  and  "  in  plain  collision 
with  the  sentimentB  he  had  previously  maintained."  Ho  had 
admitted  the  power  to  "  foster"  our  industry  ;  in  regard  to 
which  the  Committee  said  :  "  If  revenue  alone  is  wanted,  du- 


1832.J  NULL1IVOATION  THREATENED.  .  271 

ties  for  that  object  should  be  imposed.  It  protection  to  domes- 
tic industry  is  required,  let  duties  be  imposed  to  '  foster'  it. 
Why  should  the  chief  object  be  revenue  ?  Why  protection 
secondary,  when  the  treasury  may  be  full  ?  Then  they  should 
be  adjusted  to  secure  protection.  This  should  be  the  primary 
object.  The  protecting  power  having  once  belonged  to  the 
States,  and  having,  (as  the  President  formerly  held,)  been 
transferred  to  the  General  Government,  it  may  be  used  as 
the  good  of  the  nation  demands,  for  a  primary,  not  a  secondary 
object." 

The  general  expressions,  "  objects  of  national  importance  ;" 
"  some  of  the  comforts  of  life  ;"  "  interests  too  local  ;"  "  some 
kinds  of  manufactures  for  which  the  country  is  not  ripe,"  the 
Committee  thought,  afforded  no  aid  in  adjusting  the  details  of 
a  protecting  tariff.  The  Committee  also  objected  to  the  sug- 
gestion to  submit  each  interest  "  singly  for  deliberation," 
without  reference  to  a  general  system.  They  believed  also 
that  it  was  inexpedient  to  disturb  the  tariff  which  had  been 
so  recently  revised. 

Whether  the  language  of  the  Message,  in  connection  with  . 
certain  facts  and  circumstances,  justified  the  allegations  of 
the  opponents  of  Gen.  Jackson,  that  he  was  shaping  his  views 
and  policy  to  secure  Southern  favor,  we  will  not  affirm.  But 
that  more  moderate  views  than  he  formerly  held  on  this  sub- 
ject, were  necessary  to  insure  the  future  support  of  the  un- 
compromising opponents  of  the  tariff  in  that  section  of  the 
Union,  probably  few  were  disposed  to  doubt.  Nor  will  it 
probably  be  denied,  that  his  Northern  supporters  who  had 
almost  unanimously  maintained,  to  the  full  extent,  the  prin- 
ciples which  he  had  himself  advocated  in  former  years,  were 
gradually  conforming  their  views  and  action  to  the  policy 
advocated  at  the  South.  Indeed,  to  secure  the  predominance 
of  the  party,  a  union  of  his  Northern  friends  with  the  enemies 
of  protection  in  the  Southern  States,  was  considered  indis- 
pensable. And  the  result  was,  that  the  party  eventually  as- 
sumed the  common  ground  of  opposition  to  the  tariff ;  and 
some  of  the  former  champions  of  the  protective  policy  be- 
came its  most  zealous  opponents. 

The  anti-tariff  excitement  at  the  South  was  by  no  means 
allayed  by  the  slight  reduction  of  duties  by  the  tariff  act  of 
1832.  Public  meetings,  especially  in  the  State  of  South 
Carolina,  the  addresses  of  M'Duffie,  Hayne,  Hamilton,  and 
other  high  officials,  and  the  acts  and  proceedings  of  the  State 
Legislature,  kept  the  public  mind  in  a  state  of  violent  agita- 


272  THE  PROTECTIVE  S5TSTBM.  [Chap.  XI. 

tion.  Forcible  resistance,  so  long  threatened,  was  at  length 
resolved  on,  as  "  the  last  resort — as  the  only  remedy  for  the 
evils  inflicted  upon  the  South  by  the  General  Government." 
The  Legislatures  of  Virginia  and  Georgia  had  also  asserted 
the  principle  of  nullification  ;  but  they  were  unwilling  to  car- 
ry out  that  principle  by  a  forcible  opposition  to  the  tariff  laws. 

The  Legislature  of  South  Carolina  was  convened  by  tho 
Governor  the  22d  of  October  ;  and  an  act  was  passed  calling 
a  convention  to  be  held  on  the  3d  Monday  of  November,  "  to 
consider  the  character  and  extent  of  the  usurpation  of  the 
General  Government."  The  Convention  assembled  on  the 
19th  of  November,  and  on  the  24th  adopted  an  ordinance  de- 
claring the  tariff  act  null  and  void  ;  making  it  unlawful  for 
the  authorities  of  either  the  General  or  State  Government  to 
enforce  the  payment  of  duties  within  that  State  ;  and  enjoin- 
ed the  legislature  to  pass  laws  giving  effect  to  the  ordinance. 

No  sanction  was  to  be  given  to  any  appeal  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  from  the  decisions  of  the  State 
Courts,  involving  the  authority  of  the  ordinance,  or  the 
validity  of  any  acts  of  the  legislature  giving  effect  thereto, 
or  the  validity  of  the  tariff  act  of  Congress.  All  public  offi- 
cers were  to  be  sworn  to  obey  and  execute  the  ordinance  and 
the  acts  of  the  State  passed  in  pursuance  thereof.  Any  act 
that  Congress  should  pass  to  authorize  the  employment  of 
force  against  South  Carolina,  was  declared  to  be  null  and 
void,  and  would  not  be  submitted  to  ;  and  from  the  time  of 
its  passage,  the  State  would  consider  herself  absolved  from 
all  further  obligations  to  the  Union,  and  proceed  to  organize 
a  separate  Government.  The  ordinance  was  to  take  effect 
the  1st  of  February,  1833. 

Congress  met  on  the  3d  day  of  December.  The  President, 
in  liis  Message,  alluded  briefly  to  the  opposition  to  the  revenue 
laws  which  had  arisen  in  that  State.  He  expressed  the  be- 
lief that  the  laws  themselves  were  adequate  to  the  suppres- 
sion of  any  attempt  that  might  be  made  to  thwart  their 
execution  ;  but  said  :  "  Should  the  exigency  arise,  rendering 
the  execution  of  the  existing  laws  impracticable,  from  any 
cause  whatever,  prompt  notice  of  it  will  be  given  to  Con- 
gress, with  a  suggestion  of  such  views  and  measures  as  may 
be  deemed  necessary  to  meet  it." 

The  Message  had  scarcely  been  delivered  when  intelligence 
of  the  passage  of  the  ordinance  by  the  South  Carolina  Con- 
vention reached  Washington.  On  the  llth  of  December  was 
issued  the  celebrated  Proclamation  of  President  Jackson,  in 


1832-1833.]  PRESIDENT'S  VIEWS  ON  TARIFF.  273 

which  he  stated  his  views  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  appli 
cable  to  the  measures  adopted  by  the  Convention,  and 
declared  the  course  which  duty  would  require  him  to  pursue. 

The  legislature  of  South  Carolina  met  on  the  27th  of  No- 
vember, 1832,  and  passed  laws  to  give  effect  to  the  ordinance. 
These  laws  prohibited  the  collection  of  the  revenue  by  the 
officers  of  the  United  States,  and  placed  at  the  command  of 
the  Governor  the  militia  of  the  State,  to  resist  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  laws.  The  Governor  of  the  State  at  this  time 
was  Mr.  Hayne,  who  had  just  been  elected,  and  whose  place 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  was  supplied  by  the 
appointment  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  on  the  28th  of  December,  who, 
on  the  4th  of  January,  resigned  the  office  of  Vice  President. 
A  proclamation  was  issued  by  Gov.  Hayne,  in  which  he  op- 
posed that  of  the  President  by  a  constitufional  exposition 
similar  to  that  contained  in  his  speeches  of  1830  ;  and 
claimed  for  the  States  "  nullification  as  the  rightful  remedy.'7 
He  required  the  people  of  the  State  to  protect  their  liberties, 
"  if  need  be,  with  their  lives  and  fortunes/'  concluding  with 
an  invocation  to  "that  great  and  good  Being,  who,  as  a 
'  father,  careth  for  his  children,'  to  inspire  them  with  that 
holy  zeal  in  a  good  cause,  which  is  the  best  safeguard  of 
their  rights  and  liberties."  It  is  proper  here  to  say,  that  a 
portion  of  the  people  of  South  Carolina,  called  "  Union 
Party"  men,  were  determined  to  sustain  the  General  Gov 
eminent. 

These  hostile  proceedings  of  the  South  Carolina  Legislature 
were  followed,  Jan.  16,  1833,  by  a  Message  of  the  President 
to  Congress,  communicating  the  proceedings  of  the  Legisla- 
ture of  South  Carolina,  and  suggesting  the  adoption  of  such 
measures  as  the  crisis  seemed  to  demand.  A  bill  was  report- 
ed by  the  Judiciary  Committee,  empowering  the  President  to 
employ  the  land  and  naval  forces  of  the  Union,  to  enforce  the 
collection  of  the  revenue,  if  resistance  should  be  offered. 

The  tariff  of  1832  was  destined  to  be  one  of  short  duration. 
The  President,  in  his  annual  Message,  in  December,  had 
again  called  the  attention  of  Congress  to  the  subject.  He 
recommended  a  limitation  of  the  revenue  to  the  necessary 
expenditure  under  an  economical  administration  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. In  the  adjustment  of  duties,  he  said  :  "  It  is  due 
to  the  interests  of  the  different  States,  and  even  to  the  pre- 
servation of  the  Union  itself,  that  the  protection  afforded  by 
existing  laws  to  any  branches  of  national  industry,  should 
not  exceed  what  may  be  necessary  to  counteract  the  regula- 


274  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XI 

tions  of  foreign  nations,  and  to  secure  a  supply  of  those  arti- 
cles of  manufacture  essential  to  the  national  independence 
and  safety  in  time  of  war.  If,  upon  investigation,  it  shall  be 
found,  as  it  is  believed  it  will  be,  that  the  legislative  protec- 
tion granted  to  any  particular  interest  is  greater  than  is 
indispensably  requisite  for  these  objects,  I  recommend  that  it 
be  gradually  diminished  ;  and  that,  as  far  as  may  be  con- 
sistent with  these  objects,  the  whole  scheme  of  duties  be 
reduced  to  the  revenue  standard  as  soon  as  a  just  regard  to 
the  faith  of  the  Government,  and  to  the  preservation  of  the 
large  capital  invested  in  establishments  of  domestic  industry, 
will  permit. 

"  That  manufactures  adequate  to  the  supply  of  our  domes- 
tic consumption  would,  in  the  abstract,  be  beneficial  to  our 
country,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt ;  and  to  effect  their 
establishment,  there  is,  perhaps,  no  American  citizen  who 
would  not,  for  a  while,  be  willing  to  pay  a  higher  price  for 
them.  But  for  this  purpose,  it  is  presumed  that  a  tariff  of 
high  duties,  designed  for  perpetual  protection,  has  entered 
into  the  minds  of  but  few  of  our  statesmen.  The  most  they 
have  anticipated  is  a  temporary  and  generally  incidental 
protection,  which  they  maintain  has  the  effect  to  reduce  the 
price,-  by  domestic  competition,  below  that  of  the  foreign 
article.  Experience,  however,  our  best  guide  on  this  as  on 
other  subjects,  makes  it  doubtful  whether  the  advantages  of 
this  system  are  not  counterbalanced  by  many  evils  ;  and 
whether  it  does  not  tend  to  beget,  in  the  minds  of  a  large 
portion  of  our  countrymen,  a  spirit  of  discontent  and  jealousy 
dangerous  to  the  stability  of  tlie  Union. 

"  What  then  shall  be  done  ?  Large  interests  have  grown  up 
Tinder  the  implied  pledge  of  our  national  legislation,  which  it 
would  seem  a  violation  of  public  faith  to  abandon.  Nothing 
could  justify  it  but  the  public  safety,  which  is  the  supreme 
law.  But  those  who  have  vested  their  capital  in  manufactur- 
ing establishments,  can  not  expect  that  the  people  will  con- 
tinue permanently  to  pay  high  taxes  for  their  benefit,  when 
the  money  is  not  required  for  any  legitimate  purpose  in  the 
administration  of  the  Government.  Is  it  not  enough  that  the 
high  duties  have  been  paid  as  long  as  the  money  arising 
from  them  could  be  applied  to  the  common  benefit  in  the  ex- 
tinguishment of  the  public  debt  T* 

The  foregoing  paragraphs  from  the  Message  suggest  a  lew 
words  of  comment.  To  us,  the  language  of  the  President 
does  not  appear  entirely  consistent.  It  implies  that  it  is  ex- 


1832-1833.]  COMMENTS  ON  THE  MESSAGE.  275 

pedient  to  protect  national  industry  as  far  as  "  may  be  neces- 
sary to  counteract  the  regulations  of  foreign  nations,"  and 
yet  the  revenue  from  protective  duties  should  be  so  limited 
as  to  keep  the  revenue  within  the  necessary  expenses  of  the 
Government  economically  administered.  But, it  may  happen 
that  the  measure  of  protection  necessary  to  countervail  the 
restrictions  of  other  nations,  will  produce  a  revenue  exceed- 
ing the  national  expenditures.  The  reduction  of  duties  to  a 
bare  revenue  standard  may,  in  some  cases,  afford  no  pro- 
tection at  all.  If,  for  example,  a  duty  of  30  per  cent,  is 
necessary  to  enable  the  domestic  manufacturer  to  compete 
with  the  foreigner,  then  a  duty  of  20,  or  even  25  per  cent., 
would  afford  no  protection  ;  as  the  producer  or  manufacturer 
would  not  continue  to  do  a  losing  business,  though  the  loss 
should  be  a  small  one. 

Again  :  The  President  seems  to  admit  that  high  duties 
have  the  effect  to  reduce  the  price  of  manufactures,  by  do- 
mestic competition,  below  that  of  the  foreign  article  ;  and  he 
thinks  that,  to  effect  their  establishment,  any  American  citi- 
zen would  be  willing,  for  a  while,  to  pay  a  higher  price  for 
them.  But  the  manufacturers  must  not  expect  that  the  peo- 
ple will  continue  to  pay  higher  taxes  for  their  benefit.  Now, 
if,  as  he  says,  high  duties  ultimately  reduce  the  price  below 
that  of  the  foreign  article,  how  can  it  be  true  that  the  peo- 
ple continue  to  pay  any  tax  at  all  ?  If  protection  reduces 
the  price  of  domestic  goods  below  that  of  foreign  manufac- 
tures, why  not  make  protection  permanent  ?  When  prices 
have  been  thus  reduced,  the  foreign  article  is  not  bought, 
consequently  no  one  pays  the  duty.  Who,  for  instance,  pays 
a  "  high  tax"  on  coarse  cottons  ?  Notwithstanding  the  arti- 
cle has  been  "  permanently"  protected  by  a  high  duty,  almost 
equal  to  the  price  of  the  article  itself,  not  only  are  "the  peo- 
ple" supplied  at  as  low  a  price  as  those  of  any  foreign  coun 
try,  England  not  excepted,  but  the  American  manufacturer 
competes  successfully  with  the  foreigner  in  any  foreign 
market  to  which  they  are  admitted  on  equal  terms. 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  if  the  domestic  manufacturer  of  a 
certain  article  can  furnish  it  at  as  low  a  price  as  the  for- 
eigner, why  not  take  off  the  duty  ?  This  question  has  been 
answered  in  some  of  the  debates  in  preceding  chapters.  It 
might  be  sufficient  to  ask  in  return,  if  the  duty  docs  not 
operate  as  a  tax,  who  would  be  benefited  by  its  repeal  ?  But 
the  duty,  although  it  has  long  since  ceased  to  enhance,  or 
keep  up  the  price,  is  nevertheless  necessary  for  protection. 


275  THE   PROTECTIVE    SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XI 

It  has  often  been  shown,  that  foreign  manufacturers,  employ- 
ing vast  capitals,  have  sent  their  surplus  stocks  of  goods 
into  our  markets,  and  sold  them  at  a  loss,  in  order  to  gain 
possession  or  control  of  the  markets.  We  are  certainly  un- 
able to  reconcile  the  language  of  the  President  in  this  Mes- 
sage, with  the  sentiments  which  he  avowed  at  an  earlier  pe- 
riod of  his  public  life. 

On  the  28th  of  December,  1832,  Mr.  Verplanck,  of  X.  Y., 
from  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  made  a  report  to 
the  House,  accompanied  by  a  bill  to  reduce  and  otherwise 
alter  the  duties  on  imports.  This  bill  was  taken  up  on  the 
8th  of  January.  It  proposed  a  reduction  of  duties  which 
could  scarcely  fait  to  satisfy  the  most  ultra  anti-protectionist. 
The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  [Mr.  M'Lane,]  had,  in  his  an- 
nual report  to  Congress,  recommended  the  reduction  of  duties 
to  the  revenue  standard  ;  and  this  bill  appears  to  have  been 
prepared  with  a  view  to  this  object.  It  proposed  certain 
rates  of  duty,  generally  considerably  lower,  in  the  first  place, 
than  those  then  existing  ;  and  then  all  duties  which  were 
more  than  20  per  cent,  were  to  be  reduced  to  a  certain  rate, 
some  of  them  partly  in  one  year,  and  partly  in  two  years  ; 
others  wholly  at  the  end  of  the  first  year  ;  so  that  after  two 
years,  no  article  should  bear  a  higher  duty  than  20  per  cent., 
except  a  few  articles  upon  which  specific  duties  were  to  be 
charged. 

The  bill  was  taken  up  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the 
8th  of  January.  The  debate  upon  it  was  a  protracted  one, 
being  continued  until  the  25th  of  February,  when,  in  the 
House,  Mr.  Letcher,  of  Kentucky,  moved  to  strike  out  all 
after  the  enacting  clause,  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  bill 
introduced  by  Mr.  Clay  in  the  Senate.  This  being  objected 
to,  Mr.  Letcher  moved  to  recommit  the  bill  to  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  with  instructions  to  report  Mr.  C.'s  bill  to  the 
House,  which  motion  was  agreed  to  :  Yeas,  96  ;  nays,  54. 

Those  who  participated  in  the  debate  on  Mr.  Verplanck's 
bill,  were  Messrs.  Verplanck,  Root,  Cambreleng,  Ward,  and 
Beardsley,  of  N.  Y.,  Polk,  of  Ten.,  Wilde,  of  Geo.,  Jarvis,  of 
Maine,  Drayton,  of  S.  C.,  and  Patton,  of  Vir.,  in  its  favor  ; 
and  Messrs.  Huntington,  Ellsworth,  and  Young,  of  Con., 
Crawford,  Denny,  Watmough,  and  Banks,  of  Pa.,  Dearborn, 
Chonto,  ilcH,  Appleton,  Davis,  Adams,  and  Bates,  of  Mass., 
Jenifer,  of  Mil.,  White,  of  Lou.,  Everett,  of  Vt.,  Konnon,  Vin- 
ton,  and  Leavitt,  of  0.,  Arnold,  of  Ten.,  Burcres  and  Pearce, 
of  R.  I.,  Shcpard,  of  N.  C.,  Wardwell,  of  N.  Y.,  and  Wayne, 
if  Geo.,  in  opposition. 


1833]  THE  FORCE  BILL.  277 

The  division  of  the  speakers  was  not  strictly  between  pro- 
tectionists and  anti-protectionists,  as  they  had  been  formerly 
distinguished.  There  were  among  those  who  opposed  the 
bill  some  who  had  opposed  previous  tariffs,  but  who  thought 
the  proposed  reduction  too  great  or  too  sudden  ;  and  in  favor 
of  the  bill  were  some  who  had  supported  previous  tariffs,  but 
who  thought  a  material  reduction  safe  and  proper,  in  view  of 
the  near  extinction  of  the  public  debt,  and  the  advanced 
state  of  domestic  manufactures.  Also  the  attitude  assumed 
by  the 'State  of  South  Carolina,  had  more  or  less  influence 
upon  the  minds  of  some  who  supported  the  bill,  and  who 
were  disposed  to  make  some  concession  to  that  State  in 
order  to  prevent  what  was  then  by  many  apprehended — civil 
war. 

The  constitutionality  of  a  protecting  tariff  was  perhaps 
more  fully  discussed  in  this  debate  than  had  been  done  in 
any  preceding  one  on  this  subject. 

In  the  Senate,  January  21,  1833,  Mr.  Wilkins,  from  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to  which  had  been  referred  the 
Message  of  the  President,  accompanying  copies  of  his  pro- 
clamation, in  which  he  had  declared  his  purpose  to  execute 
the  tariff  laws  in  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  reported  a  "  bill 
further  to  provide  for  the  collection  of  duties  on  imports," 
otherwise  called  "  the  force  bill."  This  bill  empowered  the 
President  to  employ  the  land  and  naval  forces  of  the  Union, 
to  enforce  the  collection  of  the  revenue,  if  resistance  should 
be  offered. 

The  bill  was  supported  by  Messrs.  Wilkins  and  Dallas,  of  Pa., 
Frelinghuysen,  of  N.  J.,  Holmes,  of  Maine,  Clayton,  of  Del., 
Webster,  of  Mass.,  Rives,  of  Va.,  Forsyth,  of  Geo.,  Grundy,  of 
Ten.,  and  Swing,  of  0.  ;  and  opposed  by  Messrs.  Bibb,  of 
Ky.,  Brown,  of  N.  C.,  Tyler,  of  Va.,  Miller,  and  Calhoun,  of 
S.  C.,  Moore,  of  Ala,,  and  Poindexter,  of  Miss.  From  the 
names  above  given,  it  will  readily  be  inferred  that  the  do- 
bate  was  one  of  great  ability.  Of  course,  the  great  question 
of  the  extent  of  the  constitutional  power  of  the  General  Go- 
vernment, which  had  on  previous  occasions  been  discussed, 
was  a  prominent  topic  in  this  debate.  Of  those  who  advo- 
cated the  bill,  Messrs.  Frelinghuysen,  Holmes,  Webster,  Chiy- 
ton,  and  Ewing,  were  political  opponents  of  the  President 
and  the  Democratic  party. 

The  question  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  was  taken  on  the  20th 
of  February,  and  decided  in  the  affirmative  :  Yeas,  32  ;  nay, 
1 — Mr.  Tyler.  A  number  of  the  opposing  Senators  were  al> 


278  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XI. 

sent,  some  of  them  on  account  of  indisposition,  when  the  vote 
was  taken.  On  the  engrossment  of  the  bill,  on  tho  18th,  the 
names  of  Messrs.  Bibb,  of  Ky.,  Calhoun  and  Miller,  of  S.  C., 
King  and  Moore,  of  Ala.,  Troup,  of  Geo.,  and  Tyler,  of  Va., 
had  been  recorded  in  the  negative. 

In  the  House,  the  bill  was  taken  up  on  the  26th  of  Febru- 
ary, arid  passed  on  the  1st  of  March,  the  last  business  day 
but  one  of  that  session.  Those  who  supported  the  bill,  and 
whose-  speeches  are  published,  (except  that  of  Mr.  Wayne,) 
were,  Messrs.  Isacks,  of  Ten.,  Blair,  of  S.  C.,  and  Wayne,  of 
Geo.  It  was  opposed  by  Messrs.  Carson,  of  N.  C.,  Clayton 
and  Foster,  of  Geo.,  Root,  of  N.  Y.,  and  Daniel,  of  Ky.,  all  of 
whom,  it  is  believed,  had  previously  been  among  the  friends 
and  supporters  of  Gen.  Jackson. 

Mr.  Carson,  in  the  course  of  his  speech,  said,  his  heart  had 
never  known  such  a  feeling  of  devotion  toward  any  human 
being,  unconnected  with  himself  by  blood,  as  toward  Andrew 
Jackson.  But  he  had  arrived  at  the  spot  where  they  must 
part.  .  .  God  knew  what  had  been  his  feelings  on  perus- 
ing this  bill.  He  saw  at  once  that  the  line  of  separation  was 
drawn  forever. 

In  the  course  of  this  debate,  the  consistency  of  the  Presi- 
dent on  the  doctrine  of  State  Sovereignty  was  called  in  ques- 
tion. Mr.  Daniel  alluded  to  the  controversy  between  Geor- 
gia and  the  General  Government,  in  regard  to  the  claims  of 
the  Cherokee  Indians,  whose  case  had  been  carried  by  appeal 
from  the  courts  of  Georgia  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  Mr.  D.  said  it  was  well  known  that  the  President 
was  in  favor  of  the  repeal  of  the  25th  section  of  the  judiciary 
act,  which  authorized  the  right  of  appeal  from  the  Superior 
Courts  of  the  States  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  ;  and  this,  said  Mr.  D.,  addressing  the  Chair,  you, 
yourself,  well  know.  [Mr.  Polk,  of  Tennesse,  then  occupied 
the  Chair  in  the  temporary  absence  of  Speaker  Stevenson.] 
All  the  members  from  the  State  of  Tennessee,  he  believed, 
with  one  or  two  exceptions,  voted  for  the  repeal  of  this  sec- 
tion. But  there  were  many  more  corroborative  proofs  of  the 
President's  opinions  on  this  subject.  A  distinguished  Sen- 
ator [Mr.  Grundy]  from  the  very  State  of  which  the  Chief 
Magistrate  is  a  citizen,  expressed  the  following  opinion  in 
the  Senate  in  the  session  of  1830,  in  the  course  of  the  great 
debate  on  the  resolution  introduced  by  Mr.  Foot,  of  Connec- 
ticut. 

[The  debate  here  alluded  to,  as  the  intelligent  reader  is 


1033.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  279 

aware,  is  that  in  which  Hayne  and  Webster  took  a  distin- 
guished part,  and  in  which  the  former  maintained  the  ri^ht 
of  a  State  to  nullify  an  act  of  Congress  which  she  deemed 
unconstitutional,  and  to  secede  from  the  Union,  in  case  of  a 
violation  of  the  Constitution  by  the  General  Government. 
The  right  of  nullification,  it  was  contended,  was  in  accord- 
ance with  the  doctrine  of  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  Resolu- 
tions of  1798  and  1799,  drawn  up  by  Madison  and  Jefferson, 
especially  with  those  adopted  by  the  Legislature  of  Kentucky, 
which  had  been  prepared  by  Mr.  Jefferson.  Mr.  Grundy  had 
eaid  in  his  speech  :  "  If  the  State  possesses  the  power  to  act 
as  I  have  shown,  the  necessary  consequence  is,  that  the  act 
of  Congress  must  cease  to  operate  in  the  State,  and  Congress 
must  acquiesce  by  abandoning  the  power,  or  obtain  an  ex- 
press grant  from  the  great  source  from  which  all  its  powers 
are  drawn.  The  General  Government  have  no  right  to  use 
force.  It  would  be  a  glaring  absurdity  to  suppose  that  the 
State  had  the  right  to  judge  of  the  constitutionality  of  an  act 
of  the  General  Government,  and  at  the  same  time,  to  say  that 
Congress  had  the  right  to  enforce  a  submission  to  the  act."] 

No  difference,  said  Mr.  Daniel,  existed  between  them,  [Mr. 
Grundy  and  Mr.  Haj^ne,]  and  he  did  not  see  how  any  distinc- 
tion could  be  drawn.  The  doctrines  advocated  by  Mr.  Hayne, 
as  well  as  the  mode  in  which  they  were  advocated,  had,  at 
that  time,  met  with  the  approbation  of  the  President,  as  ex- 
pressed in  direct  terms  in  a  letter  from  him  to  Mr.  Hayne. 
The  terms  employed  were  as  strong  as  language  can  afford. 
They  were  to  the  effect  that  the  speech  contained  an  exposi- 
tion of  the  true  principles  of  republicanism,  and  that  it  should 
be  bound  up  and  placed  in  his  library  along  with  the  works 
of  Thomas  Jefferson. 

Mr.  Bell,  of  Term.,  here  rose  in  his  place,  and  inquired  of 
Mr.  Daniel  whether  he  had  a  personal  knowledge  of  the  Pres- 
ident's approval  of  those  principles,  and  of  his  commendation 
of  Mr.  Hayne's  speech. 

Before  Mr.  Daniel  could  reply,  Mr.  Carson,  of  N.  C.,  rose 
with  much  earnestness,  and  said  :  I,  from  my  personal  knowl- 
edge, can  declare  that  such  is  the  fact.  The  President  ex- 
pressed his  approbation  of  that  speech,  to  me,  in  person. 

Mr.  Daniel  proceeded,  and  said,  what  he  knew  of  the  Pres- 
ident's opinions  on  this  subject  was  from  documents  emanat- 
ing from  the  President's  own  pen  ;  from  the  various  state- 
ments of  gentlemen  whose  veracity  could  not  be  impeached, 
independent  of  a  host  of  corroborating  circumstances.  These 


280  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XI 

nullifying  doctrines  of  South  Carolina  had  thus  received  the 
sanction  and  the  advocacy,  not  only  of  the  former  Senator 
from  South  Carolina,  [Mr.  Hayne,]  but  of  the  Senator  from  Ten- 
nessee, [Mr.  Grundy,  who  had  just  advocated  the  "  force  bill," 
in  the  Senate.]  They  were  approved  by  the  President  him- 
self, until,  in  the  downward  path  of  his  administration,  he  had 
thought  fit  to  abandon  every  principle  which  had  brought 
him  into  power  :  economy,  retrenchment,  State  rights — all 
that  had  formed  the  watchword  of  the  party — all  had  vanish- 
ed into  thin  air. 

For  the  information  of  such  readers  as  may  not  be  familiar 
with  the  history  of  that  time,  it  may  be  here  stated,  that  in 
the  great  debate,  in  the  Senate,  in  1830,  to  which  reference 
is  liere  made,  it  was  contended  by  Mr^Hayne  and  other  ad- 
ministration Senators,  that  a  State  was  not  bound  by  any  de- 
cision of  the  Supreme  X^ourt  of  the  United  States  pronouncing 
a  law  of  Congress  constitutional  ;  and  that,  in  the  language 
of  the  Kentucky  resolutions,  "  the  several  States  who  formed 
that  instrument,  [the  Constitution,]  being  sovereign  and  in- 
dependent, have  the  unquestionable  right  to  judge  of  its  in- 
fraction ;  and  that  a  nullification  by  those  sovereignties,  of  all  unau- 
thorized acts,  done  under  the  color  of  that  instrument,  is  the  rightful 
remedy."  It  was  said  by  Mr.  Webster,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
the  Constitution,  and  the  laws  made  under  it.  are  declared  to 
be  "supreme;"  and  it  is  declared  that  the  "judicial  power 
shall  extend  to  all  cases  arising  under  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States."  These  two  provisions,  he  said, 
cover  the  whole  ground.  They  are  the  key-stone  of  the  arch. 
With  these  it  is  a  Constitution  ;  without  them  it  is  a  Confed- 
eracy. In  pursuance  of  those  clear  and  express  provisions, 
Congress  established,  at  its  very  first  session,  in  the  judicial 
act,  a  mode  for  carrying  them  into  full  effect,  and  for  bring- 
ing all  questions  of  constitutional  power  to  the  final  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court.  It  then  became  a  Government  ;  it 
then  had  the  means  of  self-protection. 

It  may  be  stated,  further,  for  the  information  of  the  same 
class  of  readers,  that  in  the  proclamation  of  the  President 
against  the  nullifiers,  the  right  of  nullification  and  secession 
was  discussed  at  length,  and  the  ground  taken  by  Mr.  Web- 
ster in  1830  sustained.  Hence  the  charge  of  inconsistency 
against  the  President  and  the  advocates  of;nullification  at  that 
time,  who  now  supported  the  "  force  bill." 

The  bill  y  the  House,  as  has  been  stated,  on 

the  1st  of  March  :     Yeas,  149  ;  nays,  48. 


1S33.J  CLAY'S  COMPROMISE  BILL.  281 

The  question  then  being  on  its  title,  Mr.  M'Duffie  moved  to 
strike  out  its  present  title,  and  insert,  "  An  act  to  subvert 
the  sovereignty  of  the  States  of  this  Union,  to  establish  a 
consolidated  Government  without  limitation  of  powers,  and 
to  make  the  civil  subordinate  to  the  military  power."  The 
previous  question  was  demanded,  and  the  call  seconded,.  150 
to  35.  The  amendment  of  Mr.  M'Duffie  being  thus  cut  off, 
the  question  on  the  title  of  the  bill  was  carried,  and  the  bill 
returned  to  the  Senate  as  it  had  passed  that  body. 

It  will  be  recollected,  that,  on  the  25th  of  February,  the 
House  had  adopted,  as  a  substitute  for  Mr.  Verplanck's  bill, 
to  reduce  the  duties  on  imports,  a  bill  from  the  Senate  intro- 
duced into  the  latter  body  by  Mr.  Clay,  since  generally  de- 
nominated and  known  as  "  Clay's  Compromise  Tariff  Bill." 

It  was  hoped,  probably,  by  the  friends  of  Mr.  Verplanck's 
bill,  that  its  passage  would  pacify  the  South,  and  prevent 
the  meditated  attempt  to  nullify  the  revenue  laws.  Although 
there  were  strong  doubts  of  its  passage,  at  that  session  ;  yet 
under  the  apprehension  that  at  no  distant  day — perhaps  at 
the  next  session — a  similar  bill  might  pass,  suddenly  reduc- 
ing the  duties  and  prostrating  the  manufacturing  interest, 
and  while  the  "  force  bill"  was  yet  pending  in  the  Senate, 
Mr.  Clay,  on  the  12th  of  February,  1833,  introduced  his  com- 
promise bill,  which  he  explained  and  supported  at  consider- 
able length.  The  bill,  he  said,  had  two  objects  :  one  was  to 
prevent  the  destruction  of  the  tariff  policy,  which  was  in  im- 
minent danger  ;  the  other,  to  avert  civil  war,  and  restore 
peace  and  tranquillity  to  the  country. 

This  bill,  as  finally  passed,  provided,  that  in  all  cases 
where  duties  on  foreign  g-oods  exceeded  20  per  cent.,  the  ex- 
cess was  to  be  gradually  deducted  by  the  30th  day  of  June, 
1842,  thus  :  one-tenth  of  all  over  and  above  20  per  cent,  to 
be  deducted  from  and  after  the  31st  of  December,  1833; 
another  tenth  from  and  after  the  31st  of  December,  1835  ; 
another  tenth  from  and  after  the  31st  of  December,  1837  ; 
another  tenth  from  and  after  the  31st  of  December,  1839  ; 
and  of  the  excess  above  20  per  cent,  then  remaining,  one-half 
was  to  be  deducted  from  and  after  the  31st  of  December, 
1841,  and  the  other  half  from  and  after  the  30th  of  June,  1842. 
It  was  provided,  however,  that  the  duty  on  coarse  woolens 
costing  not  more  than  35  cents  the  square  yard,  which  had, 
by  the  tariff  of  1832,  been  reduced  to  5  per  cent.,  should  be 
first  raised  to  50  per  cent.,  the  same  as  was  charged  on  other 
woolens.  To  the  list  of  articles  free  of  duty  were  to  be  add- 
ed, after  the  31st  of  December,  1833,  linens,  worsted  stuff 


282  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XI. 

goods,  and  manufactures  of  silk,  or  of  which  silk  was  the 
component  material  of  chief  value,  coming  from  this  side  of 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  except  sewing  silk.  After  1842,  on 
all  goods  then  free,  or  paying  less  than  20  per  cent,  duty, 
Congress  might,  at  discretion,  impose  duties  not  exceeding 
20  per  cent. 

The  act  abolished  credits  on  duties,  an  object  which  had 
long  been  desired  by  many.  All  duties  were  to  be  collected 
in  ready  money.  Another  important  object  secured  by  the 
bill  was  a  home  valuation,  which  was  deemed  necessary  to 
prevent  frauds  by  fictitious  invoices.  The  duties  were  to  be 
assessed  upon  the  value  of  the  goods  at  the  port  where  they 
should  be  entered.  These  two  provisions,  however,  were  not 
to  go  into  effect  until  after  the  30th  of  June,  1842. 

When  leave  was  asked  to  introduce  this  bill,  some  Senators 
objected,  on  the  ground  that  bills  for  raising  revenue — as 
were  all  tariff  bills — could  originate  only  in  the  House  of 
Representatives.  But  it  was  contended,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  this  being  a  bill  to  reduce,  the  revenue,  its  originating  in 
the  Senate  was  not  prohibited  by  the  Constitution. 

The  principal  opposition  to  the  bill  was  from  those  dis- 
tinguished as  protectionists.  Mr.  Webster  opposed  it,  because, 
in  giving  up  specific  duties  arid  substituting  ad  valorem,  the 
protective  policy  was  abandoned.  It  seemed  to  surrender 
the  constitutional  power  of  protection.  He  opposed  it  because 
it  restricted  the  future  legislation  of  Congress.  After  a  few 
of  the  first  reductions,  the  manufacturers  of  some  kinds  of 
goods  would  be  ruined.  Of  these  goods  were  boots,  shoes, 
and  clothing.  Calico  printing  establishments  would  bs 
broken  up.  Woolen  establishments  could  not  stand  with  a 
duty  of  20  per  cent.  On  iron,  too,  the  duty  was  insufficient. 
The  change  from  specific  to  ad  valorem  duties  would  be  injuri- 
ous. The  surrender  once  made,  we  could  never  return  to  the 
present  state  of  things. 

Mr.  Clay,  in  reply,  said  :  The  honorable  gentleman  appre- 
hended no  danger  to  the  tariff.  But  witness  the  recent  elec- 
tions— the  Message  of  the  President — the  opposition  of  a 
majority  of  the  friends  of  the  administration  to  the  tariff.  The 
protection  afforded  by  the  bill  would  be  ample  for  several 
years,  during  which  period  manufactures  would  acquire 
strength.  He  was  willing  the  manufacturers  themselves 
should  decide  the  question  ;  many  of  them,  then  in  Washing- 
ton, and  others  from  whom  he  had  received  letters,  had  ex- 
pressed-themselves  in  favor  of  the  bill  They  now  would 


1833.]  COMPROMISE   BILL   PASSED.  283 

know  what  to  depend  on,  and  could  regulate  their  operations 
accordingly.  He  did  not  fear  any  misconstruction  of  the 
pledge  contained  in  the  bill  ;  and  he  hoped  the  manufactur- 
ers would  go  on  and  prosper,  confident  that  the  abandonment 
of  protection  never  was  intended,  and  looking  to  more  favor- 
able times  for  a  renewal  of  a  more  effective  tariff.  Mr.  C. 
also  replied  to  the  remarks  of  gentlemen  who  would  enforce 
the  collection  of  duties  under  the  existing  laws,  without  mak- 
ing any  concession  to  South  Carolina.  He  said  :  The  oppo- 
nents of  the  bill  rely  on  force  ;  its  friends  cry  out,  force  and 
affection.  One  side  cries  out,  power  !  power  !  power  !  The 
other  side  cries  out,  power,  but  desires  to  see  it  restrained 
and  tempered  by  discretion  and  mercy,  and  not  create  a  con- 
flagration from  one  end  of  the  Union  to  the  other. 

On  the  25th  of  February,  the  debate  on  this  bill  was  ter- 
minated by  Mr.  Clay,  who  said  the  House  had  just  now. 
passed  a  bill,  [it  was  only  ordered  to  a  third  reading,]  simi- 
lar, if  not  identical,  in  its  provisions  to  the  one  before  the 
Senate  ;  and  it  would  probably  be  to-morrow  presented  to 
the  Senate  to  sanction.  And  as  it  would  obviate  the  reasons 
for  a  longer  continuance  of  a  laborious  day's  session,  and  also 
supersede  the  objections  of  Senators  who  believed  the  Senate 
was  not  the  proper  place  for  the  origin  of  this  bill,  he  moved 
that  the  Senate  adjourn.  Which  motion  was  carried. 

The  bill  was  passed  by  the  House  the  next  day,  (26th,) 
and  sent  to  the  Senate  the  same  day,  where  it  was  the  next 
day,  (27th,)  ordered  to  a  third  reading*.  On  the  1st  of  March, 
it  was  accordingly  read  the  third  time,  and  the  question  be- 
ing on  its  passage,  it  was,  after  a  debate  of  several  hours, 
decided  in  the  affirmative  :  Yeas,  29  ;  nays,  1C  ;  as  fol- 
lows : — 

YEAS.  Maine:  Holmes,  Sprague.  New  Hampshire:  Bell.  Hill.  Con- 
necticut: Foot,  Tomlinson.  New  York:  Wright.  New  Jersey:  Freling- 
'fluysen.  Delaivare:  'Clayton,  Naudain.  Maryland:  Chambers.  Virginia: 
Rives,  Tyler.  North  Carolina  :  Man  gum.  South  Carolina :  Calhoun,  Mil- 
ler. Georgia :  Forsyth.  Kentucky:  Clay,  Bibb.  Tennessee:  Grundy,  White. 
Ohio :  Ewing.  Louisiana:  Johnson,  Waggaman.  Illinois:  Robinson. 
Mississippi:  Black,  Poindexter.  Alabama:  Kins;,  Moore. 

NAYS.  Massachusetts :  Silsbee,  Webster.  Rhode  Island :  Knight,  Rob- 
bins.  Vermont :  Prentiss,  Seymour.  New  York :  Dudley.  New  Jersey : 
Dickerson.  Pennsylvania  :  Dallas,  Wilkins.  Maryland :  Smith.  Ohio : 
Ruggles.  Indiana:  Hendricks,  Tipton.  Missouri:  Benton,  Buckner. 

In  the  House,  the  bill  had  been  passed  by  a  vote  of  121  to 
84,  as  follows  : 

Maine :  Yeas,  6 ;  nay,  1.  New  Hampshire  :  Yeas,  4  ;  nay,  1.  Massa- 
chusetts :  Nays,  13.  Rhode  Island :  Nays,  2.  Vermont :  Nays,  5.  Con- 


284  THB  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM  [Chap.  XL 

nccticut  :  Nays,  6.  New  York  :  Yeas,  11 ;  nays,  19.  New  Jersey  :  Nays, 
6.  Pennsylvania:  Yeas,  4;  nays,  21.  Delaware:  Nay.  1.  Maryland: 
Yeas,  9.  Virginia:  Yeas,  20;  nay,  1.  North  Carolina:  Yeas,  13.  South 
Carolina  :  Yeas,  9.  Georgia  :  Yeas,  6.  Kentucky  :  Yeas,  12.  Tennessee  : 
Yeas,  9.  Ohio :  Yeas,  7  ;  nays,  6.  Louisiana :  Yeas,  3.  Indiana :  Yeas, 
2;  nay,  1.  Illinois:  Yea,  1.  Mississippi:  Yea,  1.  Alabama:  Yeas,  3. 
Missouri:  Nay,  1. 

From  the  above  it  appears,  that  the  New  England  States, 
except  Maine  and  New  Hampshire,  voted  unanimously 
against  the  bill ;  as  also  New  Jersey,  unanimously,  and 
large  majorities  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  ;  and  that 
the  principal  support  of  the  bill  was  from  the  Southern  and 
Western  States.  It  is  evident,  from  the  large  majority  in 
favor  of  the  bill,  that  many  must  have  voted  for  it  as  a  meas- 
ure of  conciliation 

The  nullifying  acts  of  South  Carolina  were  to  go  into  effect 
the  first  of  February,  1833.  But  at  a  meeting  of  the  State 
Rights  and  Free  Trade  party,  held  in  Charleston  in  January, 
it  was  declared  that,  as  there  were  indications  of  a  beneficial 
modification  of  the  tariff,  [alluding  to  Verplanck's  bill,]  these 
indications  should  be  met  by  corresponding  dispositions  on 
their  part  ;  and  they  therefore  resolved  to  suspend  hostile 
operations.  An  additional  inducement  to  such  suspension 
was  found,  a  few  days  afterward,  in  the  action  of  the  State 
of  Virginia,  which  assumed  the  office  of  mediator.  Governor 
Floyd,  on  the  13th  of  December,  1832,  sent  to  the  House  of 
Delegates  a  message  on*  the  subject  of  the  South  Carolina 
ordinance  and  the  President's  proclamation,  calling  attention 
to  the  same.  After  a  very  protracted  debate,  resolutions 
were  adopted,  [January  26,]  requesting  South  Carolina  to 
rescind  her  nullifying  ordinance,  or  at  least  to  suspend  its 
operation,  until  the  close  of  the  first  session  of  the  next  Con- 
gress ;  requesting  Congress  gradually  and  speedily  to  reduce 
the  revenue  from  duties  on  imports  to  the  standard  of  the  ne- 
cessary expenditures  of  the  Government ;  and  reasserting 
the  doctrines  of  State  sovereignty  and  State  rights  as  set 
forth  in  the  resolutions  of  1798,  which  neither  sanctioned  the 
ordinance  of  South  Carolina,  nor  countenanced  all  the  princi- 
ples of  the  proclamation,  many  of  which,  they  said,  were  in 
direct  conflict  with  them.  It  was  also  resolved  to  appoint  a 
commissioner  to  proceed  to  South  Carolina,  with  the  resolu- 
tions, and  to  communicate  them  to  the  Governor  to  be  laid 
before  the  Legislature  ;  and  to  expostulate  with  the  public 
authorities  and  people  of  that  State  for  the  preservation  of 
the  peace  of  the  Union.  Benjamin  Watkins  Leigh  was  ap- 


1633  j  NULLIFICATION  ABANDONED.  285 

pointed  to  the  mission,  and  reached  Charleston  on  the  3d  of 
February. 

The  object  of  the  interposition  of  Virginia  was  accomplish- 
ed before  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Leigh  in  South  Carolina.  Gov- 
ernor Hayne,  in  answer  to  the  communication  by  Mr.  Leigh, 
conveying  the  request  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  said,  as  soon 
as  it  was  known  that  that  State  had  taken  up  the  subject  in 
a  friendly  spirit,  and  that  a  bill  for  the  modification  of  the 
tariff  was  before  Congress,  it  was  determined,  by  common 
consent,  to  suspend  the  operation  of  the  ordinance  until  after 
the  adjournment  of  Congress.  The  passage  of  the  compro- 
mise tariff  act,  though  not  altogether  acceptable,  was,  how- 
ever, accepted  as  furnishing  an  ostensible  reason  for  retreat- 
ing from  the  position  which  the  State  had  assumed.  The 
Convention  reassembled  on  the  llth  of  March,  at  the  call  of 
the  Governor  ;  and  the  nullifying  ordinance  was  repealed  on 
the  alleged  ground  of  the  modification  of  the  tariff,  and  the 
frioridly  disposition  of  the  State  of  Virginia.  Severe  denun- 
ciations, however,  were  uttered  against  the  enforcing  act  of 
Congress.  It  was  pronounced  a  "  broad  usurpation  ;"  and  so 
far  as  its  authority  extended,  it  "  changed  the  character  of 
ouv  Government  into  a  military  despotism." 

There  were  several  other  States,  besides  Virginia,  which 
sympathized  with  South  Carolina,  and  from  which  the  latter 
had  probably  expected  cooperation.  But  there  was,  even  in 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  a  party  of  considerable  strength, 
opposed  to  nullification  and  secession,  called  the  "  Union 
party,"  or  "  Union  and  State  Rights  party."  Meetings  of 
this  party  also  were  held,  disapproving  the  course  taken  by 
Soath  Carolina.  Indeed,  three  of  the  South  Carolina  Repre- 
sentatives in  Congress,  [Blair,  Dray  ton,  and  Mitchell,]  voted 
foi  the  "  force  bill."  They  were  denounced  by  the  nullifiers, 
as  "  natural  wretches" — "  miscreants" — for  having  voted  for 
thti  "  bloody  bill."  The  nullifiers,  as  was  by  many  antici- 
pated, claimed  the  honor  of  a  triumph. 


236  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XII. 


CHAPTER    XII. 

State  of  the  country.  Tariff  bill  reported  by  Mr.  Fillraore  from  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means.  Bill  debated.  Also  a  bill  from  the  Committee  on  Manufac- 
tures. Passage  of  the  former. 

ALTHOUGH  there  was  for  several  years  after  the  passage  of 
the  compromise  act  of  1833,  no  general  agitation  of  the  tar- 
iff question,  that  act  was  far  from  being  satisfactory  to  the 
friends  of  protection.  A  disposition  seemed  to  prevail  to 
leave  it  undisturbed  so  long  as  the  operation  of  it  was  en- 
durable, or  until  the  year  1842,  when  the  lowest  point  of  re- 
duction should  be  reached.  But  perhaps  a  stronger  reason 
for  not  attempting  an  earlier  revision  of  the  tariff,  was  the 
fact,  that  protection  had  become  a  party  question.  The  op- 
position to  Gen.  Jackson,  embracing  the  National  Republicans 
and  Anti-Masons,  who  had  united  soon  after  his  second  elec- 
tion and  the  passage  of  Mr.  Clay's  compromise  act,  under  the 
name  of  Whigs,  had  adopted  the  protective  policy  as  a  party 
measure  ;  and  as  that  party  was  in  the  minority  in  both 
houses  of  Congress,  any  efforts  to  revive  that  policy  would 
have  been  fruitless.  The  Northern  Democrats,  who  had  for 
years  supported  the  tariff,  had,  with  few  exceptions,  aban- 
doned the  measure,  and  united  with  its  opponents  at  the 
South,  thus  forming  a  successful  opposition  to  it. 

The  depressed  condition  of  the  country,  attributed  to  the 
joint  operation  of  the  tariff  act  of  1833,  and  the  financial  pol- 
icy adopted  by  President  Jackson,  and  continued  by  Mr.  Van 
Buren,  produced  a  change  in  public  sentiment  which  brought 
the  Whigs  into  power  after  the  election  of  1840.  With  the 
election  of  Gen.  Harrison  as  President,  the  Whigs  also  se- 
cured small  majorities  in  both  Houses  of  Congress.  It  was 
expected,  therefore,  that  an  attempt  would  be  made  to  pro- 
cure the  passage  of  a  new  tariff  law  by  the  incoming  admin- 
istration. 

President  Tyler,  in  his  Message,  in  December,  1841,  called 
the  attention  of  Congress  to  the  subject  of  the  tariff.  He  had, 
ab  Senator  in  Congress,  as  the  reader  will  recollect,  opposed 


1841-1842.]  MR.  FILLMORE'S  BILL.  287 

former  tariffs.  How  far,  if  at  all,  his  anti-tariff  views  had 
been  changed,  when  nominated  by  the  Whig  party  as  a  can- 
didate for  Vice  President,  was  perhaps  not  generally  known. 
He  admitted  the  right  of  Congress,  in  imposing  duties  for 
revenue,  to  discriminate  as  to  the  articles  on  which  the  duty 
shall  be  laid,  for  the  purpose  of  encouraging  manufactures. 
He  recommended,  however,  the  exercise  of  the  power  in  a, 
spirit  of  compromise  and  conciliation  ;  and  also  that  the  du- 
ties should  not  be  so  augmented  as  to  annul  the  land  pro- 
ceeds distribution  act  of  the  preceding  session.* 

Several  kinds  of  manufactures  were  languishing  from  the 
want,  as  was  supposed,  of  adequate  protection  ;  and  a  mate- 
rial augmentation  of  the  revenue  had  become  necessary  to 
supply  the  wants  of  the  Government.  Whatever  difference 
of  opinion  may  have  existed  as  to  the  necessity  of  additional 
protection  to  manufactures,  some  measure,  it  was  universally 
conceded,  was 'necessary  to  increase  the  public  revenue; 
and  as  it  was  contrary  to  the  general  policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment to  resort  to  direct  taxation  to  replenish  the  treasury, 
Congress  adopted  the  alternative  of  a  revision  of  the  tariff. 

Numerous  petitions  were  presented  to  Congress  for  addi* 
tional  protection  to  several  branches  of  manufactures  ;  and 
others  for  a  general  revision,  or  for  what  they  called  a  "  pro- 
tective tariff"  in  the  place  of  the  compromise  act  of  1833. 
Resolutions,  also,  from  several  of  the  States  were  presented, 
requesting  such  a  revision  of  the  tariff  as  should  furnish  suf- 
ficient revenue,  and  afford  protection  to  American  industry. 

An  incidental  debate  on  the  tariff  occurred  at  a  very  early 
part  of  the  session.  Mr.  Fillmore,  of  New  York,  on  the  16th 
of  December,  offered  the  usual  resolutions  referring  to  the  ap- 
propriate Committees  the  different  parts  of  the  President's 
Message.  On  the  reading  of  the  resolution  to  refer  so- much 
of  the  Message  as  related  to  the  tariff  to  the  Committee  OD 
Manufactures,  Mr.  Atherton,  of  N.  H.,  said  he  supposed  a 
tariff  was  to  be  laid  for  revenue,  and  not  for  protection  :  he 
therefore  moved  to  strike  out  Committee  on  Manufactures, 

*  In  pursuance  of  a  proclamation  issued  by  President  Harrison  before 
his  death,  a  special  session  of  Congress  was  held  in  May,  to  consider  the 
subjects  of  the  finances  and  the  currency.  An  act  was  passed,  at  this  ses- 
sion, to  distribute  among  the  States  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  pub- 
lic lands;  subject,  however,  to  the  condition,  that  the  duties  established 
by  the  compromise  tariff  act. of  1833,  were  not  to  be  increased;  and  that 
if  the  duties  should  be  increased  by  Congress,  the  distribution  was  to  bo 
suspended  untU  the  cause  of  the  suspension  should  cease. 


28*  THE  PROTECTIVE  SrSTEM.  [Chap.  XIX. 

and  inser^  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means.  A  debate  en- 
sued, in  which  the  principle,  and,  to  some  extent,  the  consti- 
tutionality of  a  protective  tariff  were  discussed,  and  which 
continued  until  the  3d  of  January,  when,  by  a  vote  of  95 
yeas  to  104  nays,  Mr.  Atherton's  amendment  was  rejected, 
and  the  resolution,  somewhat  modified,  was  adopted. 

In  consequence  of  delays  in  obtaining  the  necessary  in- 
formation on  which  to  base  their  report,  the  Committee  on 
Manufactures  did  not  make  their  report  until  the  31st  of 
March,  1842.  The  report  stated,  that  the  estimated  expenses 
of  the  Government  for  the  current  year,  were  about  $26,000- 
000  ;  which  would  leave  a  deficit  of  about  $14,000,000. 
Such  were  the  prospective  demands  upon  the  treasury — in- 
creased by  the  enormous  expenses  of  the  Florida  war,  which 
was  not  yet  terminated — that  some  permanent  provision  for 
an  increased  revenue  was  indispensable.  The  Committee 
presumed  the  effect  of  the  derangement  of  the  currency,  State 
and  individual  indebtedness  abroad,  the  depressed  price  of 
cotton  and  all  our  principal  articles  of  produce,  and  the  gen- 
eral stagnation  of  business,  would  be  to  lessen  importations. 
Tho  20  per  cent,  duties  to  be  collected  after  the  30th  of  June 
next,  under  the  tariff  of  1833,  would  not  yield  a  revenue  ex- 
ceeding about  $15,000,000. 

The  Committee  being  of  the  opinion  that  specific  duties 
afforded  the  best  security  against  frauds,  which  opinion  was 
confirmed  by  that  of  intelligent  merchants  and  manufactur- 
ers, these  duties  had  been  to  a  great  extent  retained  by  the 
bill.  The  provisions  of  the  bill  were  stated  by  the  Commit- 
tee, as  follows  : 

JL  A  general  ad  valorem  duty  of  30  per  cent.,  with  few  ex- 
ceptions, when  the  duty  is  on  that  principle. 

$.  A  discrimination  is  made,  for  the  security  of  certain  in- 
terests requiring  it,  by  specific  duties,  in  some  instances  be- 
low, in  others  above,  the  rate  of  the  general  ad  valorem  duty. 

3.  As  a  general  principle,  the  duty  on  the  articles  subject 
to  discrimination,  is  made  at  the  rate  at  which  it  was  in  1840, 
after  the  deduction  of  four-tenths  of  the  excess  over  20  per 
cent,  under  the  act  of  1833.  Many  departments  of  industry 
were  successful  under  this  reduction,  which  could  not  bear 
the  great  reduction  of  January  last,  and  which  would  be 
overwhelmed  under  the  full  operation  of  that  act. 

The  Committee,  by  Mr.  Saltonstall,  of  Massachusetts,  Chair- 
man, expressed,  at  great  length,  their  views  in  relation  to  tho 
encouragement  of  domestic  industry.  A  few  extracts  from 
the  report  are  hero  given  : 


1842.]  REPORT  ON  THE  TARIFF.  289 

"  All  the  great  interests  of  the  country  are  now  in  an  ex- 
tremely depressed  condition  ;  every  branch  of  industry  is 
paralyzed.  How  is  it  that,  in  a  time  of  profound  peace,  with 
a  country  abounding  in  natural  resources,  and  blessed  by 
Heaven  beyond  any  other  people  that  ever  existed,  the  voice 
of  complaint  should  come  up  from  every  part  of  the  land  ? 

"  There  are  several  causes  for  the  present  depression  of 
property,  and  general  stagnation  of  business,  one  of  which 
will  be  admitted  to  be  the  large  amount  of  our  importations 
over  the  amount  of  exports.  This  depresses  our  home  in- 
dustry, and  draws  from  the  country  annually  large  balances 
in  specie,  crippling  our  banks,  and  depriving  them  of  the 
power  to  grant  the  necessary  facilities.  The  same  causes 
produced  the  exhaustion  of  our  resources  and  the  embarrass- 
ment which  were  the  principal  cause  of  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution.  As  is  stated  in  the  very  able  petition  from 
Windsor  County,  Vermont,  'from  1783  to  1789,  the  trade  of 
the i  thirteen  old  States  was  perfectly  free  to  the  whole  world. 
The  result  was,  that  Great  Britain  filled  every  section  of  our 
country  with  her  manufactures  of  wool,  cotton,  linen,  leather, 
iron,  glass,  arid  all  other  articles  used  here,  and  in  four  years 
sho  swept  from  the  country  every  dollar  and  every  piece  of 
gold/  &c. 

"  In  the  last  term  of  Gen.  Jackson's  administration,  the 
imports  exceeded  the  exports  each  year,  making  an  excess  of 
$129,681,397.  The  excess  of  imports  during  the  three  first 
years  of  Mr.  Van  Buren's  administration,  was  nearly  $70,000,- 
000.  In  1840,  for  the  first  time  for  ten  years,  there  was  an 
excess  of  exports.  In  1841,  the  imports  exceeded  the  ex- 
ports about  $3,000,000. 

"  A  tariff  of  duties  which,  while  it  will  supply  the  neces- 
sary revenue,  will  check  excessive  importations,  and  prevent 
the  flow  of  specie  abroad  for  the  payment  of  large  balances, 
will  do  much  to  restore  the  prosperity  of  the  nation.  .  .  . 
And  why  should  we  not  rely  more  upon  ourselves  and  our 
policy  ?  All  the  great  nations  of  Europe  are  protecting  their 
own  industry,  and  encouraging  their  own  manufactures,  to 
an  extent  before  unknown.  France,  Prussia,  the  German 
Sftates,  and  even  Russia,  are  making  rapid  advances  in  manu- 
factures, under  a  system  of  rigorous  restrictions. 

"  England  imposes  prohibitory  duties  on  all  articles  she 
can  raise  or  manufacture.  This  is  her  settled  policy.  Should 
an  insufficient  tariff,  with  her  vast  surplus  poured  in  upon  us, 
break  down  our  establishments,  and  we  again  import  our 

13 


290  TIIE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XII. 

cotton,  woolen,  and  other  manufactured  goods,  what  would 
she  receive  in  return  for  them  ?  With  what  could  we  pay 
her  ?  She  will  not  take  from  us  our  wheat  and  corn,  unless 
her  population  is  in  a  starving  condition,  because  they  will 
interfere  with  her  own  agricultural  interests.  The  products 
of  our  fisheries  and  our  forests  will  find  no  admission  there, 
because  she  must  encourage  her  own  fisheries  and  her  colo- 
nial timber  trade.  She  will  take  a  few  thousand  hogsheads 
of  tobacco,  but  charged  with  a  duty  and  excise  ten  times  it8 
original  cost,  and  thus  yielding  a  twelfth  part  of  her  revenue 
from  imports.  She  will  not  take  from  us  any  article  of  the 
growth,  produce,  or  manufacture  of  this  country,  except  our 
cotton,  which  has  become  essential  to  her  cotton  manufac- 
tures— that  branch  of  her  industry  which  is  now  essential  to 
her  national  wealth  and  power — and  she  is  straining  every 
nerve  to  become  independent  of  foreign  nations  for  this. 

"  A  departure  from  that  policy  under  which  duties  on  im- 
ports have  been  so  arranged  as  to  encourage  domestic  in- 
dustry, it  is  feared,  would  be  most  disastrous.  Foreign  na- 
tions would  flood  this  country  with  their  productions,  and 
destroy  our  manufactures,  by  depriving  them  of  the  home 
market. 

"  Those  opposed  to  discriminating  duties,  with  reference 
to  the  preservation  of  particular  interests,  however  important, 
object,  that  the  system  taxes  the  public  for  the  benefit  of  one 
class,  or  the  many  for  the  benefit  of  the  few.  Is  it  so  ?  Every 
other  great  branch  of  business  has  a  direct  interest  in  the 
prosperity  of  the  manufacturing  and  mechanic  arts.  The 
commercial  interest  is  intimately  connected  with  the  manu- 
facturing ;  the  exports  of  manufactured  articles  having  be- 
come an  important  item  in  the  whole  amount  of  exports. 
That  national  policy  which  encourages  enterprise,  which  pro- 
tects every  branch  of  industry,  and  which  develops  the 
resources  and  increases  the  productions  of  the  country,  must 
increase  our  commercial  prosperity.  Manufactures  are  also 
of  immense  importance  to  the  coasting  trade.  .  .  .  We 
call  it  coasting  trade.  It  is  a  great  commercial  and  navigating 
interest.  It  is  such  an  internal  commerce  as  was  never  be- 
fore enjoyed  by  any  nation,  now  employing  an  immense  tun- 
nage,  and  many  large  ships,  like  those  between  Boston  and 
New  York,  and  New  Orleans — making  voyages  equal  in 
length,  and  of  equal  importance,  to  those  across  the  At- 
lantic. 

"  The  agriculturists  have  the  greatest  interest  in  the  pros- 


1S42.J  REPORT  ON  THE  TAMFF.  291 

perity  of  manufacturing  and  mechanical  labor.  A  change  of 
policy  which  should  break  these  down,  would  deprive  them 
of  their  best  markets.  Wherever  manufacturing  establish- 
ments are  located,  villages  spring  up  around  them  ;  and 
their  effects  are  immediately  seen  in  the  increased  value  of 
land  in  the  vicinity.  Perhaps  it  would  not  be  extravagant 
to  state,  that  the  establishment  of  manufactures  had  added  an 
amount  to  the  agricultural  wealth  of  the  country,  equal  to 
the  capital  employed  in  manufactures.  Few  are  aware  of  the 
extent  of  the  demand  for  agricultural  produce,  for  the  supply 
of  a  single  manufacturing  establishment." 

In  illustration  of  this,  the  Committee  presented  a  statement 
of  Peter  H.  Schenck,  of  Fishkill,  N.  Y.,  made  by  him  to  the 
Committee,  and  given  as  a  part  of  his  testimony  on  the  sub- 
ject of  manufactures.  Mr.  S.  was  a  large  proprietor  of  the 
Glenham  Wool  Factory,  in  Dutchess  County,  N.  Y.  The  capi- 
tal said  to  have  been  employed  in  this  single  factoiy,  was 
$140,000,  by  which  a  market  was  furnished  for  the  products 
of  that  county  to  the  amount  of  $11 6,000  ;  consisting  of  fleece 
wool,  soap,  teasels,  and  firewood,  $76,281,  and  $40,000,  the 
wages  of  operatives.  The  labor  of  170  operatives,  alone,  sup- 
ported not  less  than  500  persons,  who  consumed,  weekly,  of 
agricultural  products,  not  less  in  value  than  $200  in  beef, 
pork,  flour,  butter,  eggs,  milk,  cheese,  &c.,  equal  to  $10,400 
a  year. 

To  produce  the  173,000  pounds  of  wool  consumed  by  the 
factory,  would  require  66,000  sheep  ;  the  value  of  which,  to- 
gether with  the  value  of  the  land,  22,000  acres,  to  support 
them,  and  the  500  persons  supported  by  the  labor  of  the  170 
operatives,  and  for  certain  other  supplies,  would  require  an 
agricultural  capital  of  $1,422,000. 

The  Committee  showed  the  inequality  of  the  tariff  of  the 
United  States  and  the  tariffs  of  some  other  countries.  On 
American  products  for  which  we  received  in  Europe,  $91,000,- 
000,  there  were  levied  duties  to  the  amount  of  $113,000,000  ; 
while  on  European  products  of  the  value  of  $73,000,000,  the 
duties  amounted  to  only  $17,000,000.  Tobacco,  unmanufac- 
tured, was  subject  to  a  duty,  in  England,  of  about  75  cents  a 
pound,  or  upwards  of  1,200  per  cent.  In  France,  it  was 
about  $1  a  pound,  or  more  than  1,600  per  cent.  In  Austria, 
100  per  cent.  ;  and  in  Prussia,  about  50  per  cent.  On  tobacco 
of  the  value  of  $9,225,145  sent  to  certain  countries  of  Europe, 
the  duties  were  $32,463,540  ! 

The  report  further  says  : 


J>92  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XII. 

"  A  well  regulated  tariff,  on  a  scale  sufficient  for  the  wants 
of  this  Government,  is  the  only  effectual  remedy  for  the  evils 
the  Government  and  the  people  are  now  suffering.  It  will 
inspire  confidence  throughout  the  country.  It  will  again  set 
every  wheel  in  motion.  It  will  improve  and  enlarge  the  cur- 
rency. It  will  send  out  its  life-giving  influence  to  the  extremi- 
ty of  the  Union,  and  give  vigor  and  activity  to  the  whole 
system. 

"  The  bill  provides  for  a  duty  on  sales  at  auction.  This 
will  yield  something  to  the  revenue  ;  but  the  great  object  is 
to  check  the  flooding  of  our  markets  with  goods,  the  surplus 
and  often  the  refuse  of  foreign  manufactures,  sent  here  on 
foreign  account,  to  be  sold  at  once  for  what  they  will  bring, 
to  the  injury  of  our  own  importers  and  manufacturers,  with 
orders  to  remit  the  proceeds  in  specie  immediately.  This  evil 
has  long  been  a  subject  of  complaint ;  and  a  duty  on  auction 
sales  has  heretofore  been  recommended  as  a  remedy.  In 
1832,  Mr.  McLane,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  sent  a  draft  of 
a,  bill  to  the  House  for  that  purpose.  In  the  opinion  of  many 
persons  who  have  testified  to  the  Committee,  or  communi- 
cated with  them  in  writing,  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance. 
Mr.  Schenck  says  :  '  It  is  the  surplus  of  the  foreign  manufac- 
tures, thrown  suddenly  into  our  market,  and  disposed  of  at 
auction,  that  does  the  greatest  injury  to  our  cotton  and  other 
manufactures/  " 

The  bill  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  was  reported  on 
the  31st  of  March  ;  but  the  consideration  of  it  was  long  de- 
layed, awaiting  a  counter  report  from  the  minority  of  the 
Committee. 

On  the  9th  of  May,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Mr.  For- 
ward, in  answer  to  a  request  from  the  Committee  of  Ways 
aiid  Means  of  the  26th  oi  February,  and  in  obedience  to  a  reso- 
lution of  the  House  of  the  29th  of  March,  to  communicate  a 
"  plan  for  raising  the  necessary  amount  of  revenue  for  defray- 
ing the  expenses  of  Government  by  an  increase  of  duties  on 
importations,"  &c.,  made  a  report,  accompanied  by  "  a  bill  to 
provide  revenue  from  imports,  and  to  change  and  modify  ex- 
isting laws  imposing  duties  on  imports,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses." This  bill,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Fillmore,  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  was,  on  the  12th  of  May,  re- 
ferred to  that  Committee,  and,  on  the  7th  of  June,  committed 
to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  The  next  day,  Mr.  Salton- 
Btall  moved,  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  proceed  to  the 
consideration  of  the  tariff  bill  previously  reported  by  him  from 


1842.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  293 

the  Committee  on  Manufactures  ;  when,  on  motion  of  Mr 
Fillmore,  the  bill  reported  by  him  was  taken  up,  Mr.  Salton- 
stall's  motion  having  been  rejected. 

The  bill  from  the  Treasury,  though  not  prepared  without 
some  reference  to  protection,  was  more  particularly  a  reve- 
nue bill,  revenue  being  its  principal  object.  The  duties  im- 
posed by  the  two  bills  on  some  of  the  more  important  articles, 
are  as  follows  : 

Mr.  Saltonstall's  bill  charged  upon  unmanufactured  wool 
costing  8  cents  a  pound,  or  less,  a  duty  of  4  cents  and  26  per 
cent,  ad  valorem.  Upon  other  wool,  30  per  cent.  Upon  wool- 
en manufactures,  subject  by  any  former  act  to  a  duty  of  50 
per  cent.,  a  duty  of  40  per  cent.  Upon  broadcloths  generally, 
30  per  cent.  Upon  cotton  cloths,  not  dyed,  colored,  or  print- 
ed, 30  per  cent.,  provided  that  all  cloth  not  exceeding  20 
cents  in  value  should  be  deemed  to  have  cost  20  cents  a 
square  yard. 

Upon  iron  in  bars  or  bolts,  not  manufactured  by  rolling, 
$17  a  tun  ;  made  by  rolling,  $22  ;  in  pigs,  $8. 

Upon  window  glass,  $2  40  to  $2  56,  per  100  feet. 

Upon  brown  sugar,  2  cents  a  pound  ;  refined  sugars,  6 
cents  ;  molasses,  5  cents  per  gallon. 

Upon  hemp,  unmanufactured,  $40  per  tun. 

Mr,  Fillmore's  bill  proposed  upon  coarse  wool  costing  8 
cents  a  pound  or  under,  3  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ;  other  wool, 
30  per  cent.  Upon  manufactured  wrool,  except  carpeting, 
blankets,  hosiery,  worsted  stuff  goods,  &c.,  40  per  cent. 

Upon  cotton,  3  cents  per  pound  ;  cotton  cloth,  undyed,  35 
per  cent.;  all  cloths  costing  not  over  25  cents  the  square 
yard,  to  be  estimated  at  that  price,  and  charged  accordingly. 

Upon  iron,  unmanufactured,  $18  per  tun. 

Upon  hemp,  unmanufactured,  $40  per  tun. 

Mr.  Fillmore  addressed  the  House  (in  Committee  of  the 
Whole)  at  length,  in  support  of  the  bill  reported  by  the  Corn« 
mittee  of  Ways  and  Means.  He  explained  the  bill,  and 
showed  its  probable  effect  upon  the  revenue.  He  then  pro- 
ceeded to  consider  the  subject  with  reference  to  the  inciden- 
tal protection  of  our  own  industry.  He  was  not  one  of  those 
who  professed  to  bo  indifferent  to  our  own  interests.  In 
reference  to  protection,  he  admitted  that  duties  might  be  so 
laid  for  protection,  that,  if  carried  out,  the  consequence  must 
be  prohibition  and  the  loss  of  revenue.  He  was  for  no  such 
protection  as  that.  He  bcliovod  that  if  all  the  restrictive 
system  were  done  away  with,  here  and  in  every  other  coaa 


294  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XII. 

try,  and  they  could  confidently  rely  on  enduring  peace,  that 
would  be  the  most  prosperous  and  happy  state  ;  they  would 
produce  what  they  could,  and  sell  it  where  they  could  buy 
the  cheapest.  But  although  this  as  a  theory  was  beautiful, 
yet  when  they  came  to  reduce  it  to  practice,  there  were  ex- 
ceptions to  this  rule,  and  such  as  ought  not  to  escape  obser- 
vation. 

It  was  said  by  those  in  favor  of  free  trade,  that,  by  protec- 
tive duties,  preference  was  given  to  those  engaged  in  manu- 
factures over  those  who  were  not.  This  was  not  the  case.  If 
a  duty  on  cotton  cloth  rendered  the  manufacture  of  it  profita- 
ble, not  only  A.  and  B.,  but  the  whole  alphabet,  from  A.  to  Z., 
might  engage  in  it  ;  and  the  competition  would  then  be ,  so 
great,  that  it  would  be  no  more  profitable  than  any  other  bu- 
siness. 

Mr.  F.  mentioned,  as  one  of  the  objects  of  protection,  inde- 
pendence and  security  in  time  of  war.  Protection  was  given 
in  such  case  to  favor  no  one  more  than  another.  The  manu- 
facture was  open  to  all.  We  protect  not  a  class  of  men,  but 
an  article  of  consumption,  and  that  in  order  that  the  country 
may  have  it  in  the  day  of  calamity.  In  such  case  it  was 
proper  to  discriminate  in  the  imposition  of  duties. 

Another  case  was  that  in  which  foreign  legislation  exclud- 
ed our  products  from  foreign  markets.  The  people  of  this 
country  are  desirous  of  continuing  their  agricultural  occupa- 
tions, and  supplying  themselves  with  what  they  want  from 
other  countries.  But  Great  Britain,  while  she  is  willing  to 
send  them  any  quantity  of  her  manufactures,  refuses  to  take 
any  one  of  their  agricultural  products  in  return.  What  is  to 
be  the  consequence  ?  Must  they  continue  to  produce  grain, 
only  to  rot  in  their  barns,  while  they  have  to  pay  specie  for 
al).  the  manufactures  they  import  from  England  ?  No,  sir, 
no.  Here  is  a  case  in  which  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Govern- 
ment to  interpose,  and  to  meet  restriction  by  restriction,  not 
in  a  spirit  of  resentment  or  ill  will.  Great  Britain  has  only 
exercised  a  natural  right,  a  sovereign  right,  which  belongs 
to  her  as  an  independent  nation.  We  pass  countervailing 
duties,  not  as  a  punishment,  not  as  an  act  of  hostility,  but 
merely  for  our  own  protection — merely  that  some  of  our  peo- 
ple who  had  raised  corn  and  wheat  and  cattle,  may  engage 
in  manufacturing  iron,  and  cloth,  and  other  articles,  that 
there  may  be  a  home  market  for  those  who  continue  to  raise 
grain. 

But,  though  duties  were  laid  for  revenue,  discrimination 


1842.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  295 

was  necessary.  A  high  duty  on  articles  of  small  bulk  and 
great  comparative  value,  can  not  be  collected.  What  duty 
can  you  collect  on  a  watch,  for  example,  or  on  the  minute 
parts  of  watch  machinery  ?  They  can  be  so  easily  concealed 
about  the  person,  and  in  various  ways,  that  you  can  not  pre- 
vent smuggling  them.  Hence,  on  very  small  and  costly  arti- 
cles, all  nations  exact  low  duties  to  take  away  the  tempta- 
tion to  evade  the  law. 

There  is  another  reason  for  discriminating  duties.  Upon 
articles  of  those  kinds  which  are  produced  in  our  own  coun- 
try, we  can  not  impose  very  high  duties  ;  because  that  would 
so  enhance  their  cost,  that  the  home  product  would  banish 
them  entirely  from  the  market,  and  the  duty,  being  prohibi- 
tory, would  yield  no  revenue.  It  would  operate  as  a  premi- 
um upon  production,  and  the  government  would  get  nothing 
from  the  duty. 

We  see  on  the  other  side  of  the  water,  a  very  strange  po- 
litical phenomenon  :  it  is  the  leader  of  the  British  House  of 
Commons,  declaring  himself  in  favor  of  free  trade,  and  against 
imposing  any  duty  over  20  per  cent.  It  reminds  me  of  the 
language  of  Solomon,  who,  after  all  the  excesses  of  a  life  of 
pleasure,  cries  out,  "  All  is  vanity  !"  Great  Britain  has  car- 
ried the  protective  system  so  far,  and  practiced  it  so  long, 
that  her  home  market  is  fully  supplied  ;  and  now,  forsooth, 
she  pretends  to  great  merit  in  reducing  duties  which  can  not 
be  collected.  But  mark  the  caution  with  which  Sir  Robert 
Peel  speaks  of  the  duty  on  sugar.  He  said  he  would  not  ex- 
plain the  reason  of  the  duty  on  that  article.  The  reason  is 
obvious  enough  :  the  climate  of  England  is  too  cold  to  pro- 
duce the  sugar  beet ;  it  does  not  therefore  come  in  competi- 
tion with  any  of  her  own  products,  and  can  not  become  pro- 
hibitory ;  so  it  may  be  taxed  to  any  extent.  Look  at  the 
official  report,  and  you  will  see  that  Great  Britain,  in  1840, 
raised  the  sum  of  £22,000,000  sterling,  being  more  than  one- 
half  of  her  whole  revenue,  from  four  articles,  wines,  tea,  to- 
bacco, and  sugar,  not  one  of  which  she  can  herself  produce. 
Could  either  of  them  have  been  produced  at  home,  docs  any 
one  believe  her*  people  would  submit  to  have  their  price 
raised  by  a  tax  of  ten  times  their  value  ?  It  was  only  be- 
cause the  ministry  knew  that  the  articles  could  not  be  raised 
in  England,  and  that  the  vitiated  taste  of  luxury  would  have 
them  at  any  cost.  On  this  principle  it  was  necessary  that 
there  should  be  a  discrimination  as  to  articles  of  home  pro- 
duction, that  the  duty  may  be  so  placed,  that,  while  it  does 


296  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  {Chnp.  XII. 

not  exclude  foreign  competition,  it  may  produce  as  much  as 
possible  to  the  Government :  in  a  word,  at  the  point  where 
our  own  products  and  those  from  abroad  may  exist  together 
in  the'same  market,  and  by  a  competition  produce  the  great- 
est amount  of  revenue,  and  the  lowest  cost  to  the  consumer. 
It  is  a  difficult  thing  in  practice  to  find  that  precise  point  in 
regard  to  each  article  ;  but  the  doctrine  is  theoretically  true  : 
such  a  point  must  exist. 

Mr.  F.  examined  the  two  modes  of  imposing  duties,  the  ad 
valorem  and  the  specific  :  one  looking  to  value,  the  other  to 
quantity.  The  former  would  seem  to  be  most  conformable  to 
justice,  if  the  real  value  could  always  be  ascertained.  But 
this  had  been  found  impracticable.  Men's  opinions  differ  as 
to  the  quality  or  value  of  articles.  To  a  "  home  valuation" 
there  was  the  objection,  that  an  article  in  one  port  may  have 
one  value,  and  in  another  a  higher  or  lower  value  ;  and  there- 
fore the  duties  would  not  be  uniform,  as  the  Constitution  re- 
quires them  to  be.  He  admitted  that  there  was  also  force  in 
the  objection  to  specific  duties,  that  an  article  of  an  inferior 
quality  and  low  price,  should  be  subject  to  the  same  duty  as 
a  better  and  more  valuable  article.  Therefore,  to  avoid  the 
frauds  incident  to  ad  valorem  duties,  the  Committee  had  been 
induced  to  impose  specific  duties  wherever  it  was  possible. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  had  recommended  the  pay- 
ment of  duties  in  cash,  without  credit  ;  and  the  Committee 
had  to  a  great  extent  adopted  the  system.  This  would  pre- 
vent the  European  manufacturer  from  getting  rid  of  his  sur- 
plus stock  by  throwing  it  into  our  auction  rooms,  while  he  is 
getting  a  credit  at  the  custom-house,  and  thns  injuring  all 
fair  trade.  Besides,  by  giving  credit  on  duties,  the  Treasury 
had  lost  7  millions.  Why  should  the  Government  run  such 
risk,  unless  it  was  our  policy  to  encourage  excessive  impor- 
tations ?  This  he  did  not  approve.  He  thought  our  impor- 
tations had  been  vastly  too  great,  and  had  involved  us  in  a 
debt  which  pressed  heavily  on  the  nation. 

Mr.  F.,  however,  was  in  favor  of  a  modified  warehousing 
pystc  m.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  had  not  had  time  to 
examine  the  subject,  and  therefore  had  not  made  it  a  part  of 
his  plan.  This  system  had  existed  in  Europe  many  years. 
Its  introduction  into  England  was  attempted  about  a  century 
ago,  but  without  "icccss.  The  first  successful  attempt  was 
made  in  1803,  when  it  was  adopted  by  the  British  Govern, 
ment,  and  has  been  practiced  ever  since.  The  warehousing 
system  is  a  provision  for  lodging  imported  articles  in  ware- 


1842.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  297 

houses,  until  they  are  taken  out  for  home  consumption.  If 
they  are  re-exported,  no  duties  are  ever  paid.  Or,  if  they 
have  been  paid,  they  are  remitted  on  die  reexportation  of  the 
goods.  The  scheme,  Mr.  F.  said,  had  worked  well  in  Eng 
land.  It  was  introduced  in  this  country,  in  1798,  or  earlier, 
and  has  been  in  use  ever  since  in  reference  to  teas  and  some 
other  articles.  He  mentioned  some  objections  to  which  it 
might  be  considered  liable.  He  hoped,  however,  that  the 
Committee  on  Commerce  would  report  a  bill  presenting  a 
matured  plan.  The  present  bill  contained  something  as  a 
substitute  for  it.  It  allows  goods  imported  from  beyond  the 
Cape  of  Good  Hope  to  remain  in  store  ninety  days  before  the 
duties  are  exacted. 

Mr.  F.  said  he  must,  before  concluding,  say  a  few  words 
touching  the  item  of  wool,  in  the  clause  now  under  consid- 
eration. The  duty  before  had  been  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem, 
and  4  cents  a  pound,  on  wool  costing  more  than  8  cents  ;  but 
this  had  been  coming  gradually  down  under  the  compromise 
act.  He  had  had  some  trouble  in  finding  the  amount  of  im- 
portation under  the  high  duty.  There  was  a  difference  be- 
tween wool  and  many  other  articles.  Wool  being  produced 
by  great  numbers  of  people  spread  through  many  States,  there 
can  be  no  combinations  to  keep  up  its  price,  as  has  been 
sometimes  done  in  the  case  of  other  articles,  where  the  pro- 
ducers have  been  confined  within  a  narrow  space.  The  price 
of  the  article,  therefore,  is  regulated  by  the  fixed  law  of  de- 
mand and  supply  ;  and  we  should  put  the  duty  as  high  as 
we  can,  without  making  it  prohibitory.  The  duty  was  re- 
duced by  the  bill  to  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  and  4  cents  a 
pound  specific  duty.  It  was  due  to  the  producer  that  the 
highest  duty  should  be  imposed  which  could  be  realized 
without  injuring  the  manufacturer-,  but  it  should  not  be  put 
so  high,  that  the  manufacturer  could  not  buy  ;  this  would 
break  up  the  manufacture,  and  in  the  end  ruin  the  wool- 
grower,  by  destroying  his  market. 

Mr.  Saltoristall  moved  to  amend  the  bill  by  striking  out  all 
after  the  enacting  clause,  and  inserting  the  bill  reported  by 
the  Committee  on  Manufactures.  Mr.  S.  spoke  of  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Treasury,  and  of  the  state  of  the  credit  of  the 
country.  Who  could  think  of  it  without  mortification  ?  This 
vast  country,  with  its  boundless  resources,  found  it  difficult 
to  hire  money  at  6  per  cent,,  while  Great  Britain,  encum- 
bered with  a  debt  of  thousands  of  millions  of  dollars,  with  an 
annual  expenditure  of  $300,000,000,  and  the  interest  of  her 

13* 


298  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XII. 

debt  near  $150,000,000,  was  able  to  hire  money  at  3|  to  4 
per  cent.  As  to  the  causes  of  this,  it  was  unnecessary  to  re- 
mark. Who  doubted  that  if  either  of  these  bills  should  pass 
into  a  law,  the  credit  of  this  country  would  at  once  be  re- 
stored ?  It  was  therefore  necessary  that  there  should  be  ac- 
tion on  the  subject  of  the  tariff.  The  wants  of  the  Treasury 
arid  of  the  people  alike  required  a  thorough  revision  of  the 
tariff. 

Mr.  S.  referred  to  the  condition  of  the  country.  It  was  de- 
pressed. Every  branch  of  industry  was  paralyzed,  and 
every  kind  of  business  was  in  a  state  of  stagnation.  The 
whole  country  felt  the  depression.  Their  tables  were  laden 
with  hundreds  of  petitions  ;  and  they  came  not  from  any  one 
interest  alone  ;  they  were  from  the  manufacturing,  the  great 
mechanical,  the  commercial,  and  the  agricultural  interests. 
This  very  morning  a  petition  had  been  presented,  signed  by 
six  or  seven  hundred  citizens  of  old  Virginia,  asking  for  a 
tariff  which  might  operate  incidentally  for  the  protection  of 
domestic  industry.*  As  to  the  state  of  public  opinion,  a  vast 
advance  had  been  made  since  they  came  here.  At  the  com- 
mencement of  the  session,  it  appeared  that  it  was  thought  in 
some  quarters  that  we  were  to  struggle  along  under  the 
compromise  which  made  these  gradual  reductions  of  one- 
tenth,  and  was  to  strike  the  final  blow  on  the  30th  of  June. 
But  now,  how  was  it  ?  A  close  observation  had  satisfied 
members  that  the  good  of  the  country  required  a  revision  of 
tho  tariff,  and  a  rate  of  duties  imposed  which  should  supply 
the  wants  of  the  Government,  and  at  the  same  time  operate 
to  the  protection  of  the  vast  interests  now  put  at  hazard. 

Since  1834,  said  Mr.  S.,  there  had  been  a  deficit  in  the 
revenue  from  customs  towards  meeting  the  expenditures  of 
Government,  of  $53,000;000.  In  1834,  there  was  a  deficit  of 
$2,000,000.  In  1836,  one  of  $3,000,000.  The  next  year  there 
W3,s  a  still  greater  deficiency  ;  and  in  1838,  the  receipts 
from  customs  were  $16,000,000  ;  while  the  expenditures 
wore  $31,000,000  ;  and  so  from  that  time  to  this.  Yet  noth- 
ing had  been  done  to  -check  the  course  of  expenditures,  or  to 
supply  the  deficiency  in  the  revenue.  .  .  .  How  much 


*A  petition  had  been  previously  presented,  signed  by  9,094  citizens  of 
Baltimore,  without  respect  to  party,  praying  for  such  an  adjustment  of 
the  tariff  as  would  protect  domestic  industry,  and  fora  system  of  coun- 
tervailing duties  in  relation  to  those  nations  that  had  excluded  our  pro- 
ducts. The  petition  was  said  to  be  56  yards  in  length. 


1842]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  299 

revenue,  then,  was  to  be  raised  ?  We  were  obliged  to  raise 
at  least  the  sum  stated  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Manufactures,  $26,000,000,  or  $27,000,000.  The  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  had  estimated  the  amount  which  his  bill 
would  raise,  at  $27,000,000.* 

What  amount  would  be  raised  under  the  present  laws  ? 
The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  told  them  $15,600,000.  Mr. 
S.  thought  that  amount  too  large.  It  was  thought  the  im- 
portations would  be  greatly  reduced,  first,  because  of  the  un- 
certainty as  to  the  tariff,  which  operated  to  check  commer- 
cial adventures,  and  then  the  great  over  supply  of  all  arti- 
cles of  importation  from  Europe  and  the  East  Indies  now  in 
market.  The  state  of  the  country  also  would  greatly  affect 
it.  How  were  we  to  pay  for  the  importations  ?  Heretofore 
we  had  received  $150,000,000  on  credit.  There  was  no  more 
to  be  received  in  this  way  ;  but  we  had  and  ought  to  pay  the 
interest  on  this,  which  would  probably  amount  to  some  6,  8, 
or  10  millions  a  year. 

Mr.  S.  noticed  the  compromise  act.  If  the  framers  of  that 
act  could  have  contemplated  such  a  state  of  things  as  we 
now  beheld,  and  as  had  existed  for  several  years  pa'st,  they 
never  would  have  adopted  that  act.  The  annual  expenditures 
were  estimated  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Wa}^s 
and  Means,  at  $11,000,000  ;  and  the  highest  estimate  was 
$18,000,000.  Did  any  man  who  voted  for  that  act  dream  that 
in  the  course  of  seven  or  eight  years  the  expenditures  would 
go  up  to  $30,000,000  and  upwards  ? 

With  respect  to  the  operation  of  that  act  upon  the  industry 
of  the  country,  he  said,  owing  to  a  state  of  things  that  did 
not  exist  at  the  time  of  its  passage,  its  effects  had  been  most 
unfortunate  arid  disastrous.  It  appeared  from  many  of  the 
petitions  from  various  interests,  that  they  were  in  the  last 
trial  in  the  crucible  to  show  whether  they  could  live  or  not. 
They  showed  the  manner  in  which  the  iron  establishments 
had  gone  out  ;  that  the  glass  works  had  been  reduced  two- 
thirds  ;  and  so  he  might  go  on  through  the  different 
branches. 

What  interest  was  more  important  than  that  of  coal,  which, 
by  the  blessing  of  Heaven,  we  found  from  one  end  of  the 

*Tlie  correctness  of  this  estimate  is  somewhat  remarkable.  Notwith- 
standing the  usual  prediction  that  the  proposed  increase  of  duties  would, 
by  checking  importations,  diminish  the  revenue,  the  average  not  revenue 
from  customs  for  the  years  1844,  1845,  and  1846,  was  $26,807,763. 


300  TIIE   PROTECTIVE    SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XII 

country  to  the  other  ?  Should  it  remain  in  the  earth  because 
coal  could  be  imported  cheaper  ?  Let  him  show  a  statement 
from  Virginia  on  this  subject.  In  1822,  there  were  sent  to 
market  1,350,000  bushels.  In  1833,  it  had  increased  to 
4,000,000  bushels.  And  in  1841,  it  had  been  reduced  to  2,- 
000,000  bushela.  In  another  column  it  is  shown  that  the 
importation  of  foreign  coal  had  swelled  up  from  966,644  bush- 
els to  5,000,000  a  year,  under  the  operation  of  the  deductions 
of  this  compromise  act.  And  it  was  stated,  that  if  the  duties 
were  brought  down  to  20  per  cent.,  it  would  be  impossible  to 
continue  the  business.  He  had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  a 
20  per  cent,  duty  would  be  wholly  insufficient  to  produce 
sufficient  revenue,  and  fatal  hi  its  effects  upon  many  of  the 
great  interests  of  this  country. 

In  what  manner,  then,  should  duties  be  levied  ?  To  avoid 
the  frauds  practiced  under  the  ad  valorem  system,  and  the  con- 
sequent injury  to  the  manufacturers  from  their  being  deprived 
of  the  protection  which  the  laws  were  intended  to  afford 
them,  specific  duties  were  to  be  preferred.  The  manufactur- 
ers generally  preferred  a  specific  duty  equivalent  to  30  per 
cent,  to  an  actual  ad  valorem  duty  of  30  per  cent.  In  this  our 
merchants  concurred.  Mr.  S.  here  read  from  a  report  of  per- 
sons who  had  been  authorized  to  make  an  examination  at  the 
New  York  custom-house. 

"  In  assessing  duties  by  any  system  of  valuation,  so  much 
depends  upon  the  erring  judgment  of  men  ;  so  great  and  fre- 
quent are  the  changes  in  the  character,  description,  and 
value  of  goods,  and  so  liable  are  men  to  be  misled  by  local 
interest,  partiality,  prejudice,  or  intentional  deception,  that 
any  system  of  ad  valorem  duties  seems  to  be  liable  to  insuper- 
able objections. 

"  The  question  naturally  presents  itself  :  '  What  system 
can  be  adopted  which  will  obviate  these  objections,  and  bet- 
ter accomplish  the  great  objects  of  establishing  uniformity 
and  preventing  fraud  in  the  collection  of  import  duties  V  To 
this  question  we  unhesitatingly  answer  :  '  A  system  of  spe- 
cific duties  on  all  articles  susceptible  of  being  so  described 
and  classified  as  to  render  the  duty  certain,  and  the  rate  of 
duty  approaching  to  uniformity  in  reference  to  the  value  of 
different  articles,  so  far  as  such  uniformity  may  be  considered 
important/  " 

The  experience  of  other  nations,  continued  Mr.  S.,  was  not 
to  be  slighted  on  a  question  like  this.  Their  duties,  it  was 
well  known,  were  specific.  In  ^ir  Robert  Peel's,  bill  lately 


1342.1  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  301 

introduced  into  Parliament,  the  duties  were  almost  entirely 
specific.  This  was  the  result  of  the  experience  of  the  great- 
est commercial  nation  on  the  globe.  The  mode  prevailed  in 
France,  Russia,  Germany,  and  everywhere.  Should  we  then 
run  atilt  with  an  experiment  contrary  to  the  experience  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  the  collectors  of  customs, 
the  manufacturers,  and  every  one  conversant  with  this  sub- 
ject ? 

Mr.  Habersham,  of  Georgia,  had  moved  to  amend  the 
amendment  by  inserting,  in  lieu  thereof,  the  bill  which  had 
heretofore  been  reported  by  him  from  the  minority  of  the  Com- 


^  one  of  the  most  objectionable  features  of  this 
of  the  specific  duty  and  the  minimum  principle. 
lie  would  submit  to  the  Committee  the  opinion  of  the  vener- 
able gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  Adams,]  on  this 
subject,  whose  opinions  were  deliberately  formed,  and  ex- 
pressed, and  communicated  to  this  House  some  ten  years  ago, 
as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures.  That  gen- 
tleman's report  said  : 

"  The  Committee,  after  a  full  and  deliberate  consideration 
of  the  arguments  submitted  to  them  by  several  of  the  most 
eminent  of  the  manufacturers,  concur  with  the  Secretary  in 
the  opinion,  that  the  system  of  graduated  mini  mums  upon  the 
manufactures  of  woolens,  ought  to  be  abolished.  This  system 
appears  to  a  majority  of  the  Committee  to  constitute  the  great- 
est and  most  reasonable  objection  of  the  South  against  the 
existing  tariff.  It  must  operate  necessarily  in  one  of  two 
ways  :  either  as  a  prohibition  upon  the  import  of  all  the  arti- 
cles included  between  the  rates  of  the  respective  minimums, 
or  by  levying  a  duty  upon  the  articles  of  different  value  far 
higher  than  that  apparent  upon  the  face  of  the  law,  and  there- 
by effecting  an  artificial  inequality  between  the  burdens  im- 
posed upon  articles  of  the  same  kind  and  the  same  value,  and 
an  equality  of  burden  alike  unnatural  upon  articles  of  differ- 
ent value,  but  of  the  same  kind.'7 

Again,  the  gentleman,  referring  to  the  minimum  principle, 
in  his  report,  said  :  "  It  appears  to  be  impossible  that  the 
practical  operation  of  such  a  system  should  not  be  unjust  ; 
and  it  contains  within  itself  the  seeds  of  those  frauds  upon 
the  revenue  of  which  there  have  been  such  heavy  complaints 
on  the  part  of  the  American  manufacturers." 

Now  what  was  the  fact  in  relation  to  that  ?  The  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  the  Chairman  of  the 


302  TEE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XII 

Committee  on  Manufactures,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Trea- 
sury, maintained  ground  directly  the  opposite  to  this  report. 
Here  wafe  the  allegation  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachu- 
setts, that  this  very  minimum  principle  contained  within  it- 
self the  seeds  of  the  frauds  committed  on  the  revenue,  and 
yet  they  were  called  on  by  these  gentlemen  to  adopt  these 
very  minimums  and  specific  duties  for  the  purpose  of  prevent- 
ing frauds  on  the  revenue.  He  told  the  gentlemen  the  truth, 
whether  they  knew  it  or  not,  and  whether  they  were  actuated 
by  that  motive  or  not,  that  the  object  of  these  minimurns  was 
not  to  prevent  frauds,  but  to*  afford  a  disguised  protection  to 
manufactures.  For  instance,  under  this  system,  a  yard  of 
cotton  cloth  costing  6  cents,  would  be  rated  as  worth  20 
cents,  and  pay  a  duty  of  30  per  cent  on  20  cents,  which 
would  subject  it  to  a  duty  of  100  per  cent.  That  was  one  in? 
stance,  and  there  were  a  hundred  in  the  bill,  in  which  the 
real  duty  was  disguised  in  like  manner,  and  where  the  lower 
article  was  charged  with  a  duty  of  100  per  cent,  while  the 
higher  quality  was  brought  down  to  30  per  cent.* 

Mr.  H.  thought  the  remarks  in  the  report  of  the  gentleman 
[Mr.  Adams]  were  as  applicable  to  specific  duties  as  to  min- 
imuins.  [Mr.  A.  had  said  nothing  against  specific  duties.] 
He  would  cite  as  evidence,  the  specific  duty  on  sugar.  There 
was  no  discrimination  in  this  article  between  the  higher  and 
lower  qualities  ;  they  both  paid  the  same  duty.  He  would 
also  mention  the  article  of  flannel,  all  qualities  being  charged 
the  same  per  yard,  the  very  coarsest  being  subject  to  a  duty 
of  100  per  cent,  while  the  finest  paid  perhaps  only  30  per 
cent  He  also  referred  to  the  article  of  carpeting.  A  carpet 
which  cost  comparatively  nothing,  was  subject  to  a  greater 
taxation,  in  proportion  to  its  cost,  than  the  rich  Turkey  or 
ingrain  carpetings  which  were  found  on  the  floors  of  the  own- 
ers of  the  manufactories,  f 

*  Mr.  Habershara  probably  did  not  mean  to  assert  what  an  uninformed 
reader  might  infer  from  his  language,  that  the  consumer  of  the  cotton 
cloih  actually  paid  100  per  cent,  duty  in  addition  to  its  original  cost  or 
value.  Cotton  cloth  of  a  fair  quality  was  actually  sold,  under  this  very 
tariff,  fur  6  cents  a  yard,  a  price  no  higher  than  the  amount  of  duty  by 
which  it  was  protected.  Although  the  minimum  principle  is  in  some  cases 
and  to  some  extent  liable  to  the  objections  above  stated,  it  was  under  this 
principle  that  effectual  protection  was  given  to  the  manufacture  of  coarse 
cottons,  and  subsequently  to  other  manufactures,  and  the  prices  reduced  to 
the  lov  es.  Tlu-  deration  and  supposed  advantages  of  this 

principle  l;ave  been  stated  in  preceding  chapters. 

t  The   it-marks  in   the    above  note   relating  to  cottons,   are    equally 


1842-]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  303 

Mr.  H.  referred  to  the  opinions  of  an  eminent  and  leading 
English  statesman,  Sir  Robert  Peel,  who  held  that  the  sys- 
tem of  laying  duties  for  the  protection  of.  one  class  of  labor, 
was  destructive  and  oppressive  to  all,  and  had  therefore  pro- 
posed a  reduction  of  all  duties,  and  said  the  highest  duty 
that  should  be  imposed  on  manufactured  articles,  was  20  per 
cent.  And  yet  we  are  told  that  the  allowance  of  25  per  cent. 
by  the  bill  which  he  [Mr.  H.]  had  proposed,  was  insisting  on 
the  free  trade  principle  ! 

The  concluding  remarks  of  Mr.  H.  are  entitled  quite  as 
much  to  the  consideration  of  the  people  of  the  South  as  to 
those  of  the  North.  Had  they  from  the  beginning  adopted 
and  pursued  the  course  suggested  by  Mr.  H.,  we  should  have 
heard  little  of  Northern  interests  and  Southern  interests  as 
conflicting  with  each  other.  The  establishment  of  manufac- 
tures there  would  have  materially  diminished  the  disparity 
in  the  wealth  of  the  two  sections  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  H.  said  that  the  low  price  of  cotton  would  force  the 
people  of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  to  divide  their  labor, 
and  throw  a  portion  of  it  into  other  employments  than  the 
raising  of  cotton.  The  lands  of  these  States  could  not  com- 
pete with  the  more  productive  lands  of  Alabama,  Mississippi, 
Louisiana,  and  Arkansas.  Lands  which  yielded  only  1,000  to 
1,200  pounds  to  the  acre,  could  not  compete  with  lands  and 
a  climate  which  yielded  from  1,800  to  2,000  pounds,  with  the 
same  amount  of  labor.  In  those  two  States,  there  must  of 
necessity  be  a  division  of  labor,  and  a  portion  of  it  must  be 
turned  to  raising  their  own  bread,  hogs,  and  horses,  and  to 
the  coarser  quality  of  cloth,  and  to  that  of  iron  and  other  arti- 
cles of  primary  necessity.  As  the  extensive  and  rich  regions 
of  Texas  were  opened  for  the  culture  of  cotton,  other  South- 
ern and  South- Western  portions  of  the  Union  would  be  placed 
in  a  like  situation  with  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  ;  and  in 
that  event,  what  would  become  of  the  market  for  the  wheat, 
the  hogs,  and  the  horses  of  the  Western  States  ?  and  what 
would  become  of  the  market  for  the  manufactures  of  the 
North  and  East  ?  There  is  no  foreign  market  for  either  ;  nor 
can  there  be  found  a  market  abroad  for  the  domestic  manu 

applicable  to  flannels.  The  truth  is,  the  lowest  priced  flannels  would 
not  be  imported  under  the  duty;  the  consumer  being  supplied  with  the 
domestic  article,  and  at  a  price  nearly  or  quite  as  low  as  that  of  the  for- 
eign, free  of  duty.  As  to  sugar,  the  bill  did  as  previous  acts  had  done, 
impose  upon  refined  sugars  a  duty  of  double  the  amount  of  that  upon 
brown  or  raw  sugar. 


304  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XII 

factures,  unless  the  domestic  prices  are  so  reduced  as  to  en- 
ter into  competition  with  the  foreign  manufactures  in  the 
foreign  market. 

If  the  Northern  manufacturers  would  take  the  advice  of  a 
friend,  they  would  at  once  endeavor  to  prepare  for  the  loss 
of  the  Southern  market.  They  would  reduce  the  duty  on  for- 
eign wool  and  other  foreign  raw  materials,  so  as  to  procure 
them  at  a  cheaper  rate,  and  thus  be  enabled  to  reduce  their 
prices  on  manufactures,  and  bring  them  down  to  a  fair  work- 
ing profit.  They  ought  to  do  this  to  prepare  gradually  to 
meet  the  ruin  which  must  otherwise  result  from  the  increase 
of  the  domestic  competition.  It  is  known  to  all,  from  Geor- 
gia, North  and  South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  and  Alabama,  that 
manufactories  are  beginning  tq  multiply  in  those  States.  It 
is  a  duty  which  the  people  of  the  States  owe  to  themselves, 
at  the  present  low  prices  of  cotton  and  their  other  produc- 
tions, to  raise  and  make  all  they  can  within  themselves,  and 
thus  to  divide  their  labor.  It  is  wisdom  in  them  to  do  this. 
If,  independently  of  bringing  these  facts  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  Committee  and  the  people  of  the  North,  he  had  had  anoth- 
er motive,  it  was  to  urge  upon  his  people  the  necessity  of  a  di- 
vision of  their  labor,  so  as  to  supply  their  own  wants  within 
themselves.  If  this  is  done  now,  they  may  be  saved  from 
that  impoverishment,  and  perhaps  ruin,  which  is  inevitable 
if  they  continue  to  act  upon  the  present  principle  of  employ- 
ing all  their  labor  in  the  production  of  cotton,  and  of  buying 
from  abroad  all  the  common  necessaries  of  life.  He  most 
fervently  prayed  them  to  make  this  change  as  soon  as  possi- 
ble :  it  was  the  only  way  to  save  their  State  from  rain. 

This  tariff  of  1842  had  singular  difficulties  to  encounter. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  the  last  reduction  under  the  com- 
promise act  was  to  take  place  from  and  after  the  30th  of 
June.  As  there  was  no  prospect  of  the  passage  of  any  new 
tariff"  law  in  time  to  prevent  the  operation  of  that  act,  a  bill 
had  been  reported,  and  was  taken  up  the  10th  of  June,  to  ex- 
tend, until  the  first  of  August  next,  all  laws  regulating  duties 
existing  and  in  force  on  the  1st  of  June,  with  a  proviso,  that 
nothing  therein  contained  should  suspend  the  operation  of 
the  distribution  law — a  law  passed  at  the  extra  session  the 
pieceding  yoar,  (1841,)  to  distribute  the  proceeds  of  the  sales 
of  the  public  lands  among  the  several  States.  The  first  half 
yearly  distribution  was  to  be  made  the  1st  of  July.  But  there 
was  another  reason  for  the  passage  of  this  temporary  act, 
besides  affording  time  to  pass  a  permanent  tariff  law.  Un« 


1S42.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  305 

der  the  compromise  act,  there  were  to  be  from  the  30th  of 
June,  a  home  valuation,  and  cash  duties.  No  law  had  as  yet 
been  enacted  to  regulate  the  collection  under  these  provis- 
ions ;  and  it  was  questioned  whether  there  was  any  law  to 
enforce  them.  This  proviso  therefore  became  a  prominent 
topic  of  discussion. 

It  will  also  be  recollected,  that  the  distribution  act  con- 
tained a  provision,  that  if,  at  any  time,  the  duties  prescribed 
by  the  compromise  law  should  be  raised,  then  the  distribu- 
tion should  cease,  and  be  suspended,  until  the  cause  of  the 
suspension  should  be  removed.  This  proviso  to  the  distribu- 
tion act  was,  at  the  time  of  its  passage,  highly  objectionable 
to  many  of  the  friends  of  distribution  ;  because,  by  diverting 
from  the  Treasury  the  amount  received  from  land  sales,  a 
necessity  would  be  created  for  an  increase  of  tariff  duties  for 
revenue.  To  prevent  such  necessity,  the  advocates  of  a  low 
tariff  opposed  the  distribution,  except  on  condition  that  it 
should  cease  in  case  the  duties  were  raised.  The  friends  of 
the  proposed  new  tariff,  therefore,  were  desirous  that  the  bill 
to  postpone  to  the  1st  of  August  the  last  reduction  under  the 
compromise  act,  should  pass  with  the  proviso  that  the  distri- 
bution should  not  be  interfered  with.  The  day  (June  10th) 
having  been  spent  in  the  discussion  of  this  temporary  exten- 
sion bill,  Mr.  Fillmore  offered  a  resolution  to  terminate  the 
debate  on  it  in  half  an  hour  ;  but  the  House,  "  being  evi- 
dently in  a  bad  temper,"  Mr.  K  waived  the  question  for  the 
day. 

On  the  14th,  the  resolution  was  so  modified  as  to  close  the 
debate  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  the  next  day  at  2  o'clock. 
On  that  day,  after  a  proposition  to  strike  out  the  proviso  con- 
tinuing the  distribution  had  been  rejected,  the  bill  was 
passed  by  the  House,  116  to  103.  It  passed  the  Senate,  24  to 
19,  having  been  so  amended  as  merely  to  suspend  the  distri- 
bution until  the  1st  day  of  August,  the  day  to  which  the  sus- 
pension of  the  provisions  of  the  compromise  act  was  to  ex- 
tend, instead  of  leaving  the  distribution  to  be  made%n  the 
1st  of  July,  as  required  by  the  distribution  act.  This  amend- 
ment was  concurred  in  by  the  House  ;  and  the  bill  was  sent 
to  the  President  for  his  approval,  but  was,  on  the  29th,  re- 
turned by  him  to  the  House  with  his  veto. 

The  veto  was  for  several  days  discussed  in  the  House  ;  the 
provisional  bill  was  again  taken  into  consideration,  and  on 
the  4th  of  July,  the  question  was  taken  on  its  passage,  and 
decided  by  yeas,  114  ;  nays,  91.  Not  two-thirds  having 


306  THE  PROTECTIVE  SSTSTEM.  [Chap  XII 

voted  in  the  affirmative,  as  required  in  the  case  of  returned 
bills,  the  bill  was  rejected. 

The  next  day  the  House  again  took  up  the  tariff  or  revenue 
bill,  and  the  day  following  adopted  a  resolution  offered  by 
Mr.  Fillmore,  that  the  debate  on  the  bill  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole  should  cease  on  Monday  the  llth  instant,  at  12  o'clock, 
M.,  unless  the  Committee  should  sooner  report  the  bill  to  the 
House  ;  and  the  Committee  wfjre  then  to  proceed  to  vote  on 
amendments,  pending  and  to  be  offered,  and  report  the  same 
to  the  House.  Tuesday  the  12th  having  been  substituted  for 
Monday  the  llth,  the  resolution  was  adopted. 

The  bill  was  debated,  and,  having  received  sundry  amend- 
ments, passed  the  House,  July  16th,  by  a  vote  of  116  to  112. 
This  bill  provided  to  continue  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds 
of  the  public  lands.  It  passed  the  Senate,  August  5th,  25  to 
23.  The  vote  in  both  Houses  was  almost  a  strict  party  vote.  In 
the  House,  only  one  Democrat,  Mr.  Parmenter,  of  Mass.,  voted 
for  the  bill.  Against  it  were  15  Whigs,  all  but  one  from 
Southern  States.  In  the  Senate,  the  votes  in  its  favor  were 
all  from  Whigs  :  against  it,  3  Whigs,  Preston,  of  S.  C.,  Gra- 
ham, of  N.  C.,  and  Rives,  of  Va.  The  bill  was  sent  to  the 
President  for  his  approval,  and  on  the  9th  of  August,  was  re- 
turned to  the  House  with  a  veto. 

The  next  day  the  veto  was  taken  up  for  consideration. 
Mr.  Adams  animadverted  severely  upon  the  numerous  vetoes 
of  the  President.  He  considered  this  last  veto  an  "  extraor- 
dinary exercise  of  power."  The  President,  he  said,  seemed 
to  be  acting  with  reference  to  a  reelection.  He  had  united 
himself  in  some  measure  to  the  Democratic  party  ;  but  he 
[Mr.  A.]  predicted  that,  if  that  party  succeeded,  they  would 
be  as  much  thwarted  by  the  President  as  the  party  now  in 
the  majority  had  been. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Adams,  the  Veto  Message  was  referred 
to  a  Committee  of  thirteen  members.  The  Committee  made  a 
report,  written  by  Mr.  Adams,  containing  a  review  of  the 
condj^jon  of  the  country,  the  action  of  Congress,  the  frequent 
application  of  vetoes  to  measures  adopted  by  Congress,*  and 
particularly  the  reasons  assigned  by  the  President  for  ap- 
plying the  power  of  negative  to  the  last  bill.  The*  report 
says  : 

"  The  power  of  the  present  Congress  to  enact  laws  essential 

*  The  President  had  applied  the  veto  to  several  bills  at  the  extra  session 
held  the  preceding  summer. 


1842.]  VETO— NEW  BILL  PASSED.  307 

to  the  welfare  of  the  people,  has  been  struck  with  apoplexy 
by  the  Executive  hand.  Submission  to  his  will  is  the  only 
condition  upon  which  he  will  permit  them  to  act.  For  the 
enactment  of  a  measure  earnestly  recommended  by  himself, 
he  forbids  their  action,  unless  coupled  wiih  a  condition  de- 
clared by  himself  to  be  on  a  subject  so  totally  different,  that 
he  will  not  suffer  them  to  be  coupled  in  the  same  law.  With 
that  condition,  Congress  can  not  comply.  In  this  state  of 
things,  he  has  assumed,  as  the  Committee  fully  believe,  the 
exercise  of  the  whole  legislative  power  to  himself,  and  is 
levying  millions  of  money  upon  the  people  without  any 
authority  of  law." 

The  report  concluded  with  a  resolution  proposing  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution,  requiring,  instead  of  two- 
thirds,  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  members  of  each 
House  to  pass  a  bill  against  the  President's  objections.  It 
was  signed  by  ten  of  the  Committee. 

Another  report  was  presented  by  two  of  the  Committee,  C. 
J.  Ingersoll,  of  Fa.,  and  James  I.  Roosevelt,  of  N.  Y.,  in 
which  they  say  it  is  not. for  their  protest  to  explain  or  enforce 
the  Executive  objections.  Letting  them  speak  for  themselves, 
they  vindicate  constitutional  rights  and  deprecate  wrongs  by 
Congress.  They  considered  it  the  duty  of  Congress  not  to 
adjourn  without  enacting  a  law  for  revenue.  They  should 
not  afford  the  President  so  great  a  triumph. 

Mr.  Gilmer,  of  Va.,  made  a  counter  report  and  protest  in  de- 
fense of  the  President,  and  in  opposition  to  the  tariff  bill  arid 
the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  land  sales. 

The  advanced  period  of  the  session,  and  the  pressing  wants 
of  the  treasury,  rendered  immediate  action  necessary.  A  bill, 
the  same  as  that  before  passed,  but  without  the  clause  which 
required  distribution,  and  with  a  provision  admitting,  free  of 
duty,  tea  imported  in  American  vessels  from  beyond  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope,  and  coffee,  was  hastened  through  the  House, 
and  passed,  (August  22d,)  105  to  103.  It  was  sent  to  the 
Senate,  where,  having  received  some  amendments,  (iirfter- 
wards  concurred  in  by  the  House,)  it  passed,  (August  27th,) 
24  to  23.  Mr.  Wright,  of  N.  Y.,  who  had  voted  against  the 
first  bill,  voted  for  this  bill  with  the  Whig  Senators,  and  saved 
the  bill.  One  reason  assigned  by  Mr.  Wright  for  voting  in 
favor  of  the  bill,  was,  "  that  this  measure  would  root  out  the 
germ  of  distribution."  The  bill  was  approved  by  the  Presi- 
dent, and  became  a  law.  , 

No  tariff  law,  more  minute  in  its  details,  or  more  effectively 


308  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  fChap.  XII 

protective  in  its  operation,  as  some  suppose,  was  ever  passed 
by  Congress,  than  this  act  of  1842.  Mr.  Calhoun  said,  as  the 
vote  on  its  passage  was  about  to  be  taken,  "  that  if  the 
Whigs  have  lost  the  distribution  measure,  they  have  gained 
another  in  this  bill  which  is  more  protective,  and  lays  duties 
more  unequally,  than  any  bill  for  protection,  which  has  ever 
been  passed  by  this  body." 

The  following  is  the  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  con- 
taining the  distribution  provision  : 

Maine  :  Yeas,  4 ;  nays,  3.  New  Hampshire  :  Nays,  6.  Massachusetts  : 
Yeas,  11.  Connecticut':  Yeas,  6.  Mode  Island:  Yeas,  2.  Vermont: 
Yeas.  5.  New  York  :  Yeas,  18  ;  nays,  18.  New  Jersey  :  Yeas,  6.  Penn- 
sylvania :  Yeas,  12;  nays,  13.  Delaware:  Yea,  1.  Maryland:  Yeas,  6  ; 
nays,  2.  Virginia:  Yeas,  7 ;  nays,  13.  North  Carolina:  Yeas,  4;  nays 
8.  South  Carolina  :  Nays,  9.  Georgia  :  Nays,  8.  Alabama :  Nays,  5. 
Mississippi:  Nays,  2.  Louisiana:  Yeas,  2;  nay,  1.  Arkansas:  Nay,  1. 
Tennessee  :  Yeas,  3 ;  nays,  9.  Kentucky  :  Yeas,  10 ;  nays,  2.  3fissouri : 
Nays,  2  Ohio:  Yeas,  12;  nays,  7.  Indiana:  Yeas,  5;  nay,  1.  Illinois: 
Yea,  1 ;  nays,  2.  Michigan  :  Yea,  1. 

For  the  bill,  115  Whigs,  1  Democrat. 

Against  the  bill,         15      '  "  97 

Of  the  Whigs  who  voted  against  the  bill,  were,  from  North 
Carolina,  3  ;  South  Carolina,  1  ;  Georgia,  6  ;  Kentucky,  4  ; 
Illinois,  1. 

The  Democrat  who  voted  for  the  bill,  was  from  Massachu- 
setts. 

Of  the  Southern  Whigs,  33  voted  in  favor  of  the  bill,  and 
14  against  it.  Mr.  Casey,  of  Illinois,  was  the  only  Northern 
Whig  who  voted  against  the  bill  ;  and  he  assigned  as  a  rea- 
son, not  his  objection  to  the  protective  system,  but  because 
the  retaliatory  provision  against  such  foreign  countries  as 
would  not  admit  our  wheat,  was  left  out  of  the  bill. 

In  the  Senate,  on  the  passage  of  the  first  bill,  the  vote  was 
as  follows  : 

YEAS.  Maine:  Evans.  Massachusetts :  Bates.  Choate.  RJicde  Island: 
Simmons,  Sprague.  Connecticut:  Hunlinston.  Vermont:  Crafts,  Phelps. 
New^i'ork :  Tallmadse.  New  Jersey :  Dayton,  Miller.  Delaware:  Bay- 
ard, ulayton.  Maryland:  Kerr,  Merrick.  Virginia:  Archer.  North 
Carolina:  Maniruni.  Louisiana:  Ban  ow,  Conrad.  Kentucky:  Crittendenj 
Morehead.  Indiana:  Smith.  While.  Mifhigan:  Porter,  Woodbridge. — 25. 

NAYS.  Maine  :  Williams.  New  Hampshire :  Woodbury.  Wilcox.  Connec- 
ticut :  Smith.  New  JV/r:  Wright.  Pennsylvania:  Buchanan,  Sturgeon. 
Virginia :  Rives.  North  Carolina  :  Graham.  South  Carolina :  Calhoun,  Pres- 
ton. Georgia:  Cu'.hberl.  Ohio:  Allen,  Tappan.  Illinois:  M'Roberts, 
Young.  Mississippi:  Walker.  Alabama:  Bagby,  King.  Missouri: 
Benton.  Linn.  Arkansas:  Fulton,  Sevier. — 23. 

On  the  passage  of  the  bill,  after  the  vetoes,  and  without  the 


1843,.]  DISTRIBUTION  BILL  VETOED.  309 

distribution  provision,  Messrs.  Williams,  Wright,  Buchanan, 
arid  Sturgeon,  Democrats,  voted  in  favor  of  the  bill  ;  and 
Messrs.  Archer,  Clayton,  Mangum,  and  Merrick,  Whigs,  who 
had  voted  for  the  first  bill,  now  voted  in  the  negative. 

So  in  the  House,  on  the  second  vote,  the  provision  for  dis- 
tribution having  been  left  out  of  the  bill,  several  members  on 
both  sides  changed  their  votes. 

The  tariff  act  having  been  secured,  a  separate  bill  was 
passed  repealing  the  proviso  of  the  distribution  act,  so  as  to 
allow  the  distribution  to  be  made,  notwithstanding  the  in- 
crease of  duties  ;  but  the  bill  was  retained  in  the  hands  of 
the  President,  and  thus  defeated. 


310  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIII, 


CHAPTER     XIII. 

Effects  of  the  tariff  of  1842.    Remarks  of  American  and  English  papers.    Prices 
of  manufactures  before  and  after  the  tariff. 

IN  the  discussion  of  every  tariff,  a  great  diversity  of  opin- 
ion has  been  expressed  on  the  subject  of  protection  to  domes- 
industry.  Few  have  taken  the  ultra  ground  of  "free- trade," 
in  the  strict  sense  of  that  term — that,  no  legislation  at  all 
should  have  reference  to  the  encouragement  of  home  labor. 
All,  with  few  exceptions,  consent  to  the  raising  of  an  ade- 
quate revenue  by  laying  duties  on  imports  ;  and  nearly  all 
concede  the  propriety  and  expediency  of  a  discrimination  in 
favor  of  certain  articles,  in  laying  the  revenue  duties  ;  that 
is,  the  duties  may  and  ought  to  be  laid  upon  articles  of  that 
class,  the  home  production  of  which  is  most  essential  to  our 
national  independence  and  prosperity.  But  as  to  the  arti- 
cles in  favor  of  which  the  discrimination  is  to  be  made,  and  the 
measure  of  duty  proper  to  be  imposed,  there  has  been,  at  all 
times  within  the  last  forty  years,  such  a  difference  of  opin- 
ion as  to  divide  the  people  and  their  representatives  into  two 
nearly  equal  parties  on  the  tariff  question. 

In  the  abstracts  of  the  reports  and  debates  on  the  several 
tariffs,  given  in  preceding  chapters,  we  have  presented  all 
the  principal  arguments  by  which  the  parties  have  supported 
their  conflicting  opinions.  Such  is  the  ability  with  which 
they  have  advocated  their  respective  theories,  and  such  the 
plausibility  of  their  arguments,  that  it  is  not  strange  that  pub- 
lic sentiment  is  so  divided  upon  this  subject.  And  as  the  in- 
terests of  all  classes  of  the  people  in  every  section  of  the 
Union  are  involved  in  this  question,  a  correct  decision  of  it 
is  of  the  highest  importance.  Is  there  no  means  of  aiding 
Hie  people  in  making  such  decision?  We  believe  there  is. 
The  friends  of  protection  have  always  been  willing  to  have 
their  theory  submitted  to  the  test  of  experiment.  To  the  re- 
sults of  their  policy,  they  have  always  appealed  with  confi- 
dence. They  have  challenged  their  opponents  to  point  out  a 
single  instance  in  which  a  protective  tariff  has  operated  un- 
favorably upon  any  of  the  great  interests  of  the  country,  or 
to  show 'that,  in  the  operation  of  any  tariff  which  they  have 
opposed  as  being  too  highly  protective,  their  predictions  of 
its  injurious  effects  have  been  fulfilled. 


1842.]  EFFECTS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  311 

So  numerous  and  varied  are  the  interests  represented  in 
our  National  Legislature,  that  it  has  been  impossible  to 
adopt  a  system  of  duties  which  gave  entire  satisfaction  to 
every  friend  of  protection  ;  yet  of  the  acts  of  1824,  1828, 
1832,  and  1842,  the  most  imperfect  one  .has  been,  on  the 
whole,  beneficial  to  the  country  at  large,  not  excepting 
those  sections  from  which  have  cc-me  the  loudest  complaints. 
These  acts — except  that  of  1832,  by  which  the  duties  on  some 
articles  were  reduced — were  called  for  in  times  of  general 
depression  and  distress  ;  and  not  one  of  them,  the  provisions 
of  which  have  been  duly  executed,  has  failed  to  afford  relief, 
and  to  improve  the  general  condition  of  the  country. 

The  law  of  1842  was  supposed  to  be  as  effectually  protec- 
tive as  any  that  preceded  it.  Its  provisions  were  probably, 
on  the  whole,  as  objectionable  to  the  South  aad  to  anti-tarift 
men  generally,  as  those  of  any  other  ;  and  its  injurious  ef 
fects  were  as  confidently  predicted.  As  this  was  the  last 
tariff,  emphatically  protective,  which  has  been  enacted  by 
Congress,  and  as  its  effects  were  as  clearly  marked,  perhaps, 
as  those  of  either  of  its  predecessors,  we  have  thought  proper, 
among  the  various  information  collected  in  this  Chapter,  to 
show  the  practical  operation  of  this  law  during  the  brief  pe- 
riod of  its  existence. 

The  bill,  though  intended  to  supply  the  deficiency  in  the 
revenue  under  the  compromise  act,  and  hence  called  a  revenue 
bill,  was  equally  a  protective  measure,  designed  to  aid  in  re- 
viving the  industrial  interests  of  the  country  which  had  been 
prostrated  by  causes,  of  which  the  great  reduction  of  duties 
effected  by  that  act  was  riot  the  least.  If,  then,  the  law  of 
1842  fully  answered  the  purposes  of  its  authors  and  friends, 
and  disappointed  the  fears  of  its  enemies,  as  had  been  done 
by  former  acts  of  a  similar  character,  why  should  not  the 
fact  be  admitted  as  conclusive  evidence  in  favor  of  the  pro- 
tective policy  ?  > 
/  The  immediate  effect  of  the  passage  of  this  law,  and  of  the 
*  supposed  permanent  settlement  of  the  long  agitated  question 
of  a  protective  tariff,  was  a  restoration  of  confidence,  and  the 
consequent  revival  of  business.  In  man}7  quarters,  notices 
appeared  of  factories  that  had  been  suspended,  being  about 
to  resume  work,  and  of  their  owners  inquiring  for  hands. 
Within  a  few  days  after  the  act  was  passed,  a  New.  York 
paper  announced,  that  the  Matteawan  factory  had  set  to  work 
400  hands  ;  and  that  the  proprietors  of  a  factory  at  Haver- 
straw  had  put  the  same  in  operation. 


312  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIII 


Another  New  York  city  paper  said  :  "  Confidence  in  a  bet- 
ter  state  of  things  is  becoming  more  general,  and  most  busi- 
ness men  begin  to  feel  that  we  have  seen  the  worst.  We 
can  not  anticipate  a  very  large  business,  nor,  if  it  were  prac- 
ticable, do  we  consider  that  it  would  be  desirable.  The 
means  of  the  community  have  been  materially  reduced.  The 
circulation  of  the  banks  is  at  a  very  low  point  ;  and,  although 
they  could  safely  expand,  and  would  gladly  do  so,  yet  an  in- 
crease of  discounts  must  take  place  with  the  general  restora- 
tion of  confidence,  and  founded  upon  the  legitimate  wants  of 
the  community." 

Said  another  paper  of  the  same  city  :  "  The  tariff  is  felt 
already.  We  have  seen  gentlemen  from  New  Jersey  who 
inform  us,  that  up  to  the  present  time,  more  than  forty  mills 
that  have  been  closed  are  to  be  speedily  opened.  In  the  iron 
regions,  the  ore  which  has  been  on  the  banks  of  the  canal 
•  as  quiet  as  stones,  and  almost  of  as  little  value,  is  contract- 
ed for.  In  this  city,  there  is  an  evident  improvement  in 
trade  ;  confidence  begins  to  increase,  particularly  among 
manufacturers." 

A  Boston  paper  said  :  "  Since  the  passage  of  the  tariff 
bill,  the  business  of  this  city  has  taken  a  new  start.  The 
transportations  for  the  last  two  days  have  been  on  an  exten- 
sive scale." 

A  Baltimore  paper  said  :  "  Since  the  passage  of  the  tariff 
bill,  a  better  state  of  things  has  succeeded  to  the  previous 
depression  in  almost  every  department  of  business.  The 
general  feeling  in  the  community  is  more  cheerful  and  lively 
than  it  has  appeared  to  be  at  any  time  within  the  last  few 
years.  A  gradual  return  to  the  full  flood  tide  of  enterprise 
and  prosperity,  is  to  be  desired  in  preference  to  any  sudden 
movements. 

u  If  parly  politics  can  be  kept  from  subverting  the  firm 
foundation  now  laid  for  the  establishment  of  national  interests 
on  the  basis  of  home  industry  and  domestic  resources,  the 
most  salutary  results  may  be  anticipated,  ag  time  advances, 
and  opportunities  are  offered  for  the  resuscitation  of  the 

E rostrate  energies  of  the  country.  We  hope  that  party  vio- 
jnce  will  not  be  permitted  to  overthrow  this  well  begun 
system.  The  people  can  not  fail  to  sustain  it,  if  they  fully 
understand  the  issue  that  is  made  up  on  this  question,  and 
begin  to  realize  the  benefits  that  flow  from  this  domestic  and 
genuinely  American  policy." 

These  are  but  specimens  of  public  sentiment  expressed  iu 


1342.]  SOUTHERN  OPPOSITION  313 

the  papers  throughout  the  Northern  States.  But  there  wero 
not  wanting  indications  of  an  early  effort,  even  in  these 
States,  to  disappoint  the  hopes  expressed  by  the  Baltimore 
editor  in  the  paragraph  quoted  above,  "  that  party  violence 
would  not  be  permitted  to  overthrow  this  well  begun  system." 
Opposition  to  it  was  soon  manifested  by  the  Democratic 
party,  as  such.  But  it  was  at  the  South  that  it  received  the 
most  violent  opposition. 

/  The    Kichmoud   Enquirer,  having   presented   the   reasons 

/offered  by  the  four  Democratic  Senators,  [Williams,  of  Maine,   \ 

(  Buchanan  and   Sturgeon,  of  Pa.,  and  Wright,  of  N.  Y.,]  for 

/  voting  for  the  bill,  said  :  "  With   every   disposition   in   the 

world   to   treat   with   every  liberality  gentlemen  who   have 

/   hitherto  distinguished  themselves  in  the  Democratic  ranks, 

[    yet  we  beg  leave  most  respectfully  to  say,  that  we  shall  hold 

them  to  the  letter  arid  spirit  of  their  averments — that  we     \ 
/    shall  never  rest  satisfied  until  this  bill  of  abominations  is  ex- 
/     punged  from  the  statute  book,  or  completely  changed  in  its 
enactments  ;  and  that  we  count  upon  Messrs.  Buchanan,  Stur-     / 
geon,  Wright  and  Williams,  to  cooperate  with  us,  and  take 
the  cross  upon  their  own  shoulders.     Repeal  !     Repeal  !  is 
now  fiTe  word." 

Determined  opposition  to  the  law  was  also  declared  in.  pub- 
lic meetings,  as  well  as  in  the  papers,  in  the  Southern  States. 
The  Southern  Democracy — or  at  least  a  portion  of  them — • 
were  also  dissatisfied  with  their  brethren  of  the  North,  who 
did  not  quite  come  up  to  extreme  Southern  notions  on  the 
tariff  question.  The  following  extracts  from  an  article  in 
the  Albany  Argus,  attracted  attention  at  the  South  : 

"  The  two  political  parties  are  divided  upon  this  matter. 
The  Democracy  go  for  a  tariff  sufficient  to  defray  the  expen- 
ses of  the  National  Government,  economically  administered, 
discriminating  in  the  duties,  laying  them  mainly  on  such  arti- 
cles as  come  in  competition  with  those  produced  in  this  coun- 
try, thereby  affording  '  incidentally'  a  strong,  and  by  most 
people  believed  a  sufficient  protection  to  American  industry. 
Tl  e  Whigs  go  for  a  tariff  which  does  not  stop  here.  They 
w»  mid  increase  it  still  higher  upon  articles  which  can  be  sup- 
plied  in  this  country,  and  raise  their  price  still  higher  for  the 
sake  of  '  protection'  only,  although  it  should  increase  the  rev- 
enue above  the  wants  of  the  National  Government,  and  pro- 
duce a  surplus,  again  to  be  distributed  among  the  States." 

To  this  the  Charleston  Mercury  thus  demurred  : 

"  *  Thu  Democracy/  according  to  this  exposition,  goes  for 

14 


3H  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [ChaF.  XIII. 

a  tariif  discriminating  in  its  duties,  and  laying  the  main 
weight  of  its  imposition  upon  articles  coming  into  competi- 
tion with  those  produced  in  this  country,  thereby  affording  a 
*  strong  protection  to  American  industry/  '  The  Democracy' 
too,  says  the  Argus,  '  both  at  the  North  and  in  the  South, 
with  few  exceptions,  are  desirous,  for  the  sake  of  protecting 
American  industry,'  to  '  pay  taxes  upon  woolens,  cottons, 
worsted  stuffs,  iron,  nails,  salt,  sugar,  glass,  and  all  the  arti- 
cles which  can  be  produced  here  ;'  and  that  '  tea,  coffee, 
spices,  dye-stuffs,  and  a  great  variety  of  other  articles  should 
be  relieved  from  tax,  that  it  may  be  increased  upon  articles 
that  can  be  produced  here,  and  that,  too,  for  the  sake  of  pro- 
tection ;'  the  only  difference  between  the  '  Democratic?  creed 
as  here  exhibited  and  the  Clay  and  ultra  Federal  creed,  being 
one  not  of  principle,  but  of  degree  only.  '  The  Democracy' 
disclaim  that  a  surplus  and  its  distribution  is  any  object  of 
theirs,  but  on  the  protective  and  necessarily  prohibitory  prin- 
ciple, they  are  as  strong  as  any  Whig  of  them  all  ! 

"  Surely,  we,  plain,  straight-forward,  free  trade  Democrats 
of  the  South,  have  a  right  to  protest  against  being  spoken 
for  after  such  a  fashion  ;  and  may  be  excused  if  we  exhibit 
distrust  as  well  as  surprise,  when  we  behold  a  manoeuver 
such  as  this  change  of  position,  so  sudden  and  so  soon,  after 
the  explicit  declaration  of  the  New  York  members  of  the  late 
session  of  Congress,  that  they  were  opposed  to  a  protective 
tariff  in  principle,  and  only  voted  for  the  present  infamous  law, 
and  passed  it  by  their  votes,  to  get  rid  of  the  land  distribu- 
tion act." 

Suspecting  the  New  York  Democracy,  of  which  the  Argus 
was  the  organ,  of  being  actuated,  in  the  utterance  of  such 
sentiments,  by  the  fear  of  meeting  the  Whigs  at  the  approach- 
ing fall  election  on  the  issue  of  a  real  Democratic  tariff,  the 
Mercury  said  : 

"  The  Argus  has  willfully  subjected  itself  to  the  conjecture, 
whether  a  press  which  could  tender  such  concessions  in  the 
game  for  a  single  State,  may  not  be  tempted  to  concede  again 
and  further,  for  the  sake  of  the  more  glittering  prize  of  party 
ascendency  in  the  Union." 

Accounts  from  Europe  represented  the  sensation  produced 
there  by  the  passage  of  the  American  tariff  act,  as  little  less 
than  that  which  prevailed  in  our  Southern  States.  There  was 
high  exultation  in  France  and  England  on  receiving  intelli- 
gence of  President  Tyler's  veto  of  the  bill  extending  the  pro- 
visions of  the  compromise  act,  and  involving  the  distribution 


1842]  COMPLAINTS  IN  ENGLAND.  315 

measure,  an  account  of  which  is  given  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ter. This  veto  was  there  regarded  as  foreshadowing  the  fate 
of  the  tariff  system.  A  Paris  paper  said  :  "  Our  manufactur- 
ers are  safe  for  some  months,  perhaps  for  ever,  from  the  hos- 
tile projects  of  the  Whigs.  We  advise  the  French  mercantile 
houses  who  trade  with  the  United  States,  not  to  neglect  to 
improve  the  present  state  of  things." 

But  when  the  news  of  the  passage  of  the  tariff  bill  reached 
Europe,  the  presses  were  loud  in  their  denunciations  of  it. 
Those  of  Great  Britain  discussed  it  as  one  calculated  to  affect 
materially  the  British  manufacturing  districts.  Our  tariff, 
however,  was  not  the  only  one  of  which  the  English  papers 
complained.  One  of  them  remarked  :  "  At  no  period  of  our 
history,  except  during  the  ascendency  of  Napoleon,  has  such 
an  alarming  succession  of  blows  been  struck  by  foreign  Gov- 
ernments at  the  commercial  prosperity  of  England,  as  since 
the  entrance  of  Robert  Peel  upon  office.  Within  the  last  ten 
months,  no  less  than  six  hostile  tariff's  have  been  published  by 
other  countries  ;  and  it  is  possible  that  the  year  may  not 
conclude  without  adding  a  seventh.  We  state  these  facts  with 
a  view  of  calling  the  serious  attention  of  Government,  of 
Parliament,  and  of  the  country  to  the  events  themselves,  and 
to  the  considerations  they  suggest  as  to  the  future  commercial 
policy  of  England." 

This  paper  then  enumerates  the  hostile  tariffs. 

"  1.  The  Russian  tariff,  issued  in  November,  1841  ;  by 
which  the  duty  on  worsted  or  woolen  goods,  and  mixed 
worsted  and  cotton,  was  raised  from  3s.  6d.  to  6s.  2d.  per 
pound  English.  The  new  duty  is  from  200  to  300  per  cent. 
ad  valorem  ;  printed  g^oods  are  prohibited. 

"  2.  The  Portuguese  tariff,  bearing  date  the  12th  Decem- 
ber, 1841, -by  which  the  duties  on  English  woolens  were 
raised  from  360  reis  per  Ib.  to  600  reis  per  Ib.  The  latter  is 
equal  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  44  per  cent,  on  the  average 
qualities  of  cloth  sent  to  Portugal.  Before  1837,  (in  which  year 
the  tariff  was  raised,)  the  duties  were  only  about  10  per  cent., 
though  nominally  15  per  cent. 

"  3.  The  French  tariff,  bearing  date  the  26th  June,  1842  ; 
by  which  the  duties  on  English  linen  yarns  and  linens  were 
doubled,  and  made  almost  entirely  prohibitory — this  beiug  by 
far  our  largest  branch  of  export  to  France. 

"4.  The  Belgian  tariff,  issued  in  July,  1842;  by  which 
the  duties  on  English  linens  and  linen  yarn  were  raised  to 
the  same  prohibitory  rates  as  the  French  duty,  in  obedience 


THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  Xf II. 


to  the  dictation  of  France,  and  with  a  view  of  preventing  the 
smuggling*  of  English  linens  and  yarns'  into  that  country 
through  Belgium. 

"5.  The  United  States  tariff,  bearing  date  August,  1842  ; 
by  which  the  duties  on  woolens  were  raised  from  20  to  40 
per  cent  ;  on  worsted  goods,  from  20  to  30  per  cent.  ;  and  on 
cotton  goods  the  duty  was  made  nominally  30  per  cent.  ; 
but  on  some  kinds  of  goods  it  is  in  reality  from  100  to  200  per 
cent  ;  and  on  many  kinds  of  cottons,  woolens,  and  other 
goods,  the  duty  will  be  prohibitory. 

"  The  German  league  tariff,  passed  September,  1842  ;  by 
which  the  duty  on  one  of  the  largest  branches  of  our  exports, 
namely,  worsted  goods,  figured  or  printed,  is  raised  from  30 
to  50  dollars  per  cwt,  so  as  to  be  in  many  cases  prohibitory, 
and  by  which  the  duty  on  quincaiUerie  or  hardware  is  increas- 
ed probably  50  dollars  per  cwt. 

"  And  it  is  not  impossible  that  next  month  the  Brazilian 
tariff  may  be  raised  very  greatly  ;  the  Brazilian  Government 
having  given  notice  to  that  effect. 

"  Such  an  unparalleled  succession  of  untoward  events  is  V\ 
indeed  menancing  to  our  manufactures  and  foreign  commerce,  V 
and  demands  the  anxious  attention  of  the  Government 

"  It  is  proper  to  observe  on  this  remarkable  series  of  hos- 
tile tariffs,  that  they  bear  no  evidence  of  confederacy  against 
us.  The  only  exception  is  in  regard  to  France  and  Belgium, 
where  the  feebler  power  obeys  the  order  of  the  stronger. 
Russia,  France,  Belgium,  the  United  States,  Germany,  and 
even  in  some  degree  Portugal,  have  been  influenced  by  a  de- 
sire to  protect  their  own  manufactures.  The  United  States 
and  Portugal  have  been  additionally  moved  by  the  hope  of 
relieving  their  financial  embarrassments,  though  the  plan  has 
certainly  not  succeeded  in  Portugal,  and  is  not  likely  to  suc- 
ceed in  America.  Brazil  acts  in  retaliation  for  the  prohibitory 
duties  imposed  in  this  country  on  her  sugars." 

From  a  report  made  to  the  British  Parliament  by  a  com- 
mission who  had  been  directed  to  inquire  relative  to  the  con- 
sumption of  British  manufactures  in  other  countries,  it 
appeared  that,  on  tin  average,  each  inhabitant  of  Prussia  used 
sewn  cents  worth  of  British  goods  annually  ;  each  Russian 
fiftvn  cents  worth  ;  each  Dane  seventeen  cents  worth  ;  each 
Fn.'iichmtin  twenty  cents  worth  ;  whilst  each  inhabitant  of  the 
United  States  used  four  dollars  and  two  cents  worth  !  It  is  not 
strange,  therefore,  that  a  protective  American  tariff  should 
cause  rogret  in  England. 


1812.];  EFFECTS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  317 

The  sanguine  hopes  of  an  indefinite  period  of  national  pros- 
perity under  the  operation  of  the  new  tariff,  were  greatly 
moderated  by  the  results  of  the  elections  in  the  fall  of  1842. 
In  the  large  States  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  Ohio, 
and  some  of  the  smaller  States,  there  were  great  Democratic 
gains,  which  were  considered  as  indicating  danger  to  the 
tariff.  It  had  been  passed  by  the  smallest  majorities  in  both 
Houses  of  Congress  ;  and  therefore  the  least  anti-tariff  gains 
would  encourage  the  opponents  of  a  protective  tariff  to  a  new 
attack  upon  the  system,  and  with  no  slight  prospect  of  suc- 
cess. And  it  was  seriously  apprehended  by  its  friends,  that 
the  new  tariff  would  be  overthrown  before  it  could  have  a 
fair  trial.  It  was  confidence  in  its  permanence  that  had,  in  a 
great  measure,  given  the  fresh  impulse  to  domestic  enter- 
prise ;  and  it  was  feared  that  the  efficiency  of  the  tariff 
would  be  much  impaired  even  during  the  period  of  its  exist- 
ence, which,  in  all  probability,  would  not  extend  beyond  the 
first  session  of  the  next  Congress.  And  it  was  not  improba- 
ble that  an  effort  would  be  made  to  repeal  or  essentially 
modify  it  at  the  next  session  of  the  Congress  by  which  it  had 
been  enacted. 

As  to  the  practical  working  of  the  tariff,  little,  perhaps, 
could  be  determined  before  the  next  meeting  of  Congress.  Its 
effects  were,  however,  represented  by  its  friends  as  highly 
favorable.  A  New  York  city  paper,  in  November,  remarked  ; 
"  When  the  tariff  bill  was  passed,  imposing  a  greater  duty 
on  foreign  goods,  it  was  alleged  by  most  men,  that  it  would 
increase  the  price  of  foreign  articles  nearly  or  quite  to  the 
amount  of  the  duty,  and  thus  it  would  be  an  indirect  tax  on 
the  people.  Contrary  to  this  prediction,  the  fact  has  turned 
out  differently.  Nearly  all  descriptions  of  French  and  Brit- 
ish goods,  we  are  informed  by  those  who  deal  in  them,  were 
never  lower,  and  some  descriptions  were  never  so  low  as  they 
are  selling  at  the  present  time.  Those  who  have  from  choice 
or  necessity  thrown  those  goods  into  the  auction  rooms,  have 
realized  the  most  ruinous  prices.  The  article  of  coal,  which 
now  pays  a  duty  of  $1  75  a  tun,  is  no  dearer  than  it  was  be- 
fore the  tariff  law  was  passed.  Iron,  the  great  article  of  con- 
sumption, bears  but  a  very  moderate  advance  above  what  it 
did  before  the  duty  was  raised." 

The  President  in  his  next  annual  Message,  [December,  1842,] 
said  :  "  The  present  tariff  of  duties  was  somewhat  hastily 
and  hurriedly  passed  near  the  close  of  the  last  session  oi 
Congress.  That  it  should  have  defects,  can,  therefore,  be 


318  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIII. 

surprising  to  no  one.  To  remedy  such  defects  as  may  be 
found  to  exist  in  many  of  its  provisions,  will  not  fail  to  claim 
your  serious  attention."  He  recommended  "  moderate  duties 
with  a  wise  discrimination  as  to  their  several  objects,  as  be- 
ing not  only  most  likely  to  be  durable,  but  most  advanta- 
geous to  every  interest  of  society." 

The  President  could  hardly  have  expected,  however,  that 
Congress  would  so  soon  interfere  with  the  labors  of  its  own 
hands,  and  continue  an  excitement  which  was  rapidly  sub- 
siding. Nor  did  there  appear  to  be  any  disposition  among 
the  opponents  of  the  tariff  generally  to  have  the  subject  re- 
agitated  by  the  action  of  Congress.  The  principal  manifes- 
tations of  opposition  to  the  tariff  appeared  in  some  of  the 
Southern  States,  where  meetings  were  occasionally  held,  and 
anti-tariff  reports  made  and  corresponding  resolutions  passed. 
Resolutions  of  the  Legislature  of  Illinois  were  presented  in 
Congress,  declaring  the  tariff  partial,  unjust,  and  anti-demo- 
cratic, and  that  it  ought  to  be  modified. 

Also  a  report  of  the  Committee  on  Federal  Relations  in 
the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina,  on  the  subject  of  the  tar- 
iff, adopted  by  the  Legislature,  was  transmitted  by  the  Gov- 
ernor of  that  State  to  the  President  and  to  Congress.  The 
report  and  the  resolutions  accompanying  it,  declare  a  tariff, 
except  for  revenue,  to  be  unconstitutional ;  that  the  tariff  of 
1842  bestowed  bounties  upon  manufacturers,  by  extorting 
money  from  all  the  rest  of  the  community  ;  that  the  people 
of  that  State  trusted  to  the  constitutional  principles  of  the 
Democratic  party,  and  looked  to  it  for  relief.  The  report 
enumerates  some  of  the  supposed  evil  effects  of  the  measure, 
and  adds  :  "This  is  the  operation  of  the  tariff  which  the 
Whig  administration  has  imposed  upon  the  nation.  It  was 
concocted,  not  for  revenue,  for  it  is  so  extravagant  as  to  cut 
off  importation.  It  cripples  agriculture,  by  enhancing  the 
cost  of  the  articles  necessary  to  the  planter,  and  more  espe- 
cially by  depriving  him  of  the  market  of  the  world  for  the 
sale  of  his  crops.  It  does  not  excuse  or  palliate  this  injustice 
that  it  has  been  practiced,  more  or  less,  since  the  foundation 
of  the  Government.  This  only  proves  that  the  activity  and 
corruption  of  a  selfish  few  have  been  successful  in  defeating 
the  just  rights  of  the  people." 

Opinions  very  different  from  these,  however,  as  to  the  pros- 
pective effects  of  the  tariff,  as  well  as  to  those  already  expe- 
rienced, both  in  this  country  and  England,  appeared  in  the 
papers  of  these  two  countries. 


, 
V  \ 


1842.J  EFFECTS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  319 

Respecting  the  effect  of  our  tariff  in  England,  a  spinner  in 
Manchester  writes,  November  9,  1842:  "  Fine  yarn  and 
goods  remain  as  low  in  price  as  ever  ;  and  as  producers  we 
have  a  miserable  trade.  Our  distress  has  been  increased  by 
the  unwise,  ungenerous,  and  self-robbing  tariff  of  the  United 
States,  and  which,  though  professing  to  have  been  passed 
for  revenue  and  protection,  has  been  really  passed  for  manu- 
facturing plunder,  in  contradistinction  to  our  own  agricul- 
tural plunder.  We  hope  that  common  sense  and  justice  may 
prevail  in  your,  as  well  as  in  our  Legislature." 

The  people  of  this  country  had  long  felt  the  effects  of  "  the 
agricultural  plunder"  inflicted  upon  them  by  the  "  corn  laws" 
of  England.  It  was  but  reasonable  and  natural  that  we 
should  adopt  a  policy  which  would  enable  us  to  obtain  our 
supplies  of  "  fine  yarns  and  goods,"  as  well  as  hundreds  of 
other  articles,  where  our  agricultural  products  were  not  ex- 
cluded by  any  such  system  of  "plunder"  as  that  which  had 
so  long  been  cherished  by  the  British  Government  as  a  favor- 
ite policy. 

The  London  Times,  of  the  19th  of  July,  1843,  less  than  one 
year  from  the  'passage  of  the  tariff  law,  in  an  article  on  the  1 
"Decline  of  the  trade  with  America,"  said  the  exports  of! 
British  goods  to  the  United  States  had  been  only  about  one-  1 
'half  of  the  average  annual  amount  exported  from  1833  to  j 
1841,  both  years  inclusive.  Instead  of  about  $38,000,000,  as/ 
during  those  years,  the  exports  for  1842  were  only  about  i 
$17,000,000.  The  exports  of  numerous  articles  were  given.  \ 
Among  them  we  find  manufactures  of  cotton,  of  iron,  of  silk,  ! 
and  of  wool,  of  some  of  which  the  amount  exported  to  this  ' 
country  had  diminished  more  than  two-thirds.  The  Times! 
said  : 

fr  "  After  making  every  allowance  for  the  more  than  usual  V 
Embarrassment  of  trade  in  the  United  States  in  1842,  the  first 
of  the  above  return  can  not  be  regarded  as  being  otherwise 
than  most  unfavorable  to  the  prospects  of  English  industry, 
while  the  second  shows  that  the  balance  of  trade  is  turning 
against  this  country  in  a  manner  which  renders  it  doubtful 
whether  we  shall  not  shortly  have  to  pay  for  American  cot- 
ton in  specie  instead  of  goods.  (^  &vv7k  ^ 

"  Nothing  but  a  very  great  revival  of  the  demand  for  Eng- 
lish manufactures  can  save  us  from  this  evil  ;  and  without  a 
reform  of  the  American  tariff,  there  is  very  little  hope  of  any 
revival  at  all  equal  to  the  necessities  of  the  case  ;  but  we 
must  consent  to  make  liberal  concessions  if  we  wish  or  hope  / 


to  receive  them." 


320  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIH 

Many  other  articles  from  British  papers  might  be  given, 
deprecating  the  effects  of  our  new  tariff  upon  the  trade  be« 
tween  the  countries  ;  a  trade  which,  owing  to  the  divided 
state  of  public  sentiment  in  this  country,  the  British  Gov- 
ernment Lad  been  enabled  hitherto  to  dictate  on  her  own 
terms. 

"A  Merchant"  in  New  York  city,  in  the  summer  of  1843, 
spoke  in  a  city  paper  of  the  new  tariff  as  follows  : 
I  "  Under  the  influence  of  this  tariff,  every  interest  of  the 
/country  is  rising  from  a  state  of  unparalleled  depression 
•quite  as  rapidly  as  could  be  desired  ;  and  what  will  greatly 
disappoint  the  opponents  of  the  measure,  the  importation  of 
foreign  goods  the  present  year  will  be  somewhat  beyond  the 
wants  of  the  country,  producing  a  revenue  from  customs  of 
Borne  2  or  3  millions  more  than  the  estimate  of  the  last  Com- 
mittee of  Ways  and  Means.  A  goqd  fall  trade  is  antici- 
pated ;  and  the  orders  that  have  gone  forward  for  goods  to 
arrive  in  July  and  August  will  be  found  quite  large  enough. 

"  Nor  have  the  South  so  much  reason  to  complain  of  the 
present  state  of  things.  No  section  of  the  country  is  recov- 
ering more  rapidly  from  the  terrible  revulsion  of  1836  and  '7, 
than  the  States  of  the  South  and  South- West.  Cotton,  at  the 
present  price,  pays  the  planter  better  than  the  agricultural 
products  of  the  Northern  and  Western  States  remunerate  the 
farmers  of  those  States.  The  consumption  of  cotton  in  this 
country  the  present  year,  will  not  vary  much  from  400,000 
bales  ;  and  thus  far  it  has  been  taken  by  our  manufacturers 
at  prices  that  have  paid  the  planter  10  or  15  per  cent,  more 
than  that  shipped  to  Liverpool  or  Havre. 

"  And  so  of  bread-stuffs.  For  years  past,  the  safest  and 
best  market  for  Western  flour  has  been  the  district  of  our 
country  in  New  England  devoted  to  manufactures  ;  and 
although  our  merchants  have  occasionally  felt  authorized,  by 
accounts  from  the  other  side,  to  ship  flour  to  Europe,  the  re- 
sult has  invariably  shown,  that  the  home  market  is  more  to 
be  relied  upon  than  the  foreign. 

"  During  my  experience  in  trade — and  it  extends  back 
more  than  twenty-five  years — all  our  commercial  revulsions 
have  had  their  origin  in  excessive  importations  from  abroad. 
It  is  in  vain  to  say  the  country  will  take  no  more  goods  than 
it  actually  requires.  Nine  times  out  of  ten,  all  the  goods 
brought  here  will  be  sold.  If  the  importer  finds  that  there 
is  a  large  surplus  in  tho  first  hands,  he  will  offer  to  the  job- 
ber inducements,  either  in  price  or  time,  or  both,  to  take 


1842.]  EFFECTS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  321 

them  off  from  his  hands  ;  and  when  the  jobber  finds  lie  has 
accumulated  a  stock  beyond  the  demands  of  his  regular  cus- 
tomers, he  will  be  sure  to  place  a  portion  of  that  stock  where 
he  ought  not,  by  taking  up  men  of  doubtful  credit.  And  so 
of  the  retailer  in  the  country.  Preserve  the  present  rate  of 
duties,  and  all  these  evils  will  be  avoided. 

"  The  present  tariff  excludes  from  our  market  Manchester 
prints — an  article,  the  importation  of  which  has  heretofore 
taken  a  large  amount  of  specie  out  of  the  country  :  and  what 
has  been  the  consequence  ?  Why,  within  the  last  eight 
months  there  have  been  improvements  in  this  country  in  the 
machinery  connected  with  this  branch  of  business,  [printing,] 
such  as  were  never  made  in  England  during  the  same  num- 
ber of  years  ;  and  the  consumer  is  now  furnished  with  do- 
mestic calicoes  at  G  to  15  cents  a  yard,  superior  to  the  im- 
ported goods,  for  which  he  used  to  pay  from  18  to  27.  And 
this  will  be  the  case  with  numerous  other  articles.  Wher- 
ever foreign  competition  is  excluded,  there  will  always  be 
such  an  application  of  capital  and  skill  as  will  favor  the  con- 
sumer. 

"  Who,  past  middle  life,  has  forgotten  the  large  amounts 
of  specie  formerly  sent  from  this  country  every  year  for  the 
purchase  of  East  India  cottons — goods  familiarly  known  at 
that  day  as  '  hum-hums  ?'  The  tariff  of  1816  imposed  duties 
upon  those  goods  that  amounted  to  a  prohibition.  Within 
two  years  thereafter,  their  place  was  supplied  by  a  domestic 
article  superior  in  texture,  and  at  a  reduced  price  ;  and  from 
that  time  to  the  present,  the  manufacture  of  brown  and 
bleached  cottons  has  steadily  advanced,  until  New  England 
now  spreads  her  heavy  fabric  in  the  Canton  market,  side  by 
side  with  the  Calcutta  goods,  and  challenges  a  comparison. 
.  .  .  For  the  present,  leave  the  tariff  where  it  is,  with 
perhaps  some  slight  modifications,  and  a  career  of  pros- 
perity is  in  store  for  this  country,  such  as  it  has  not  experi- 
enced." 

Of  the  favorable  effect  of  the  tariff  of  1842  upon  the  pro- 
duction of  wool  in  this  country,  by  keeping  out  foreign  wool, 
a  Vermont  paper,  in  August,  1843,  furnished  an  important 
item  of  evidence.  It  gave  the  following  facts  : 

In  1840,  the  amount  of  foreign  coarse  wool  imported,  was 
14.000,000  pounds  ;  in  1841,  a  little  upwards  of  10,000,000. 
From  a  statement  received  by  Mr.  Slade  from  the  Register  of 
the  Treasury,  it  appeared  that,  during  the  first  half  of  the 
fiscal  year  which  commenced  the  1st  of  October,  1842,  one 

14* 


322  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIII 

month  after  the  new  tariff  went  into  operation,  there  was  im- 
ported : 

Wool  costing  7  cents  or  under, 881,368 

Wool  costing  over  7  cents, 175,962 

Which  being  doubled  for  the  entire  year  would  stand  as 
follows  : 

Wool  costing  7  cents  or  under, 1,762,736 

Wool  costing  over  7  cents, 351,924 

The  importations  of  the  year  ending  September  30th,  1 842, 
were  as  follows  : 

Wool  costing  8  cents  or  under,. 10,538,998 

Wool  costing  over  8  cents, 751,384 

This  vast  falling  off  in  the  importation  of  foreign  wool 
must  have  greatly  increased  the  demand  for  domestic  wool, 
and  shows  that  the  wool  grower  as  well  as  the  manufacturer 
was  benefited  by  the  tariff. 

The  beneficial  effects  of  a  protective  tariff  upon  domestic 
industry  are  illustrated  in  the  manufacture  of  the  two  articles 
mentioned  below.  Most  of  our  glass-ware  was  formerly  im- 
ported ;  and  among  the  rest,  the  cheap  "common  tumbler 
from  Germany,  at  a  cost  of  50,  44,  41,  and  at  the  lowest,  37£ 
cents  a  dozen  ;  at  which  price,  the  importers  barely  made 
the  freight  on  them,  declaring  that  they  brought  them  merely 
to  fill  up  their  cargoes.  The  tariff  of  1842  imposed  a  heavy 
duty  on  them — 10  cents  a  pound.  With  this  encouragement 
the  manufacture  was  attempted,  and  in  1843,  these  tumblers 
were  sold  at  27 \  cents  a  dozen — one  of  the  hundred  instances 
disproving  the  doctrine  that  the  duty  is  necessarily  a  tax  to 
the  consumer. 

Pins  were  for  the  first  time  adequately  protected  in  1842, 
when  there  were  said  to  be  but  two  pin-making  establish- 
ments in  this  country.  In  1843,  under  the  increased  duty,  a 
superior  article  was  selling  15  per  cent,  cheaper  than  before. 
The  duty  insured  a  steady  market  ;  the  manufacture  was 
increased  ;  and  the  natural  consequence  was  a  reduction  of 
the  price. 

Nothing,  perhaps,  more  clearly  demonstrated  the  favorable 
operation  of  the  tariff  than  the  following  statement  of  the 
wholesale  prices  of  goods  of  the  various  branches  of  trade  in 
the  city  of  Richmond,  Va.,  prepared  by  respectable  and  in- 
telligent merchants  of  that  place,  showing  the  prices  of  the 
articles  named,  in  1841,  the  year  before  the  passage  of  the 
act,  and  in  1843,  the  year  after 


1843.]  EFFECTS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  323 

Prices  in  1841.  Prices  in  1843. 

Sack  salt, $  1  90    to  2  25  $  1  60    to    1  65 

Am.  bar  iron,  per  ton,    85  00  70  00         75  00 

English  do  "        70  00  57  00 

Swedes    do  "        &0  00  77  00 

Richmond  manuf.,"       9000  8100 

Am.  blis.  steel,     "      115  00  95  00 

Collins'  axes,       doz.    18  00  14  00 

Simmons'   do         "        18  00  13  00 

Castings,  hollow,  Ib.     00  04  00  03    to  00  03J 

Anvils, "      00  12J  to  0  16 }          00  09    to  00  14 

Vices, "      0015    to  0  20 

Scythe  blades      doz.    16  14 

Nails,  Rich,  made,  Ib.    00  05  .to  0  05J  00  03£  to  00  04 

Bar  lead, .,     00  06  J  0005 

Loaf  sugar,  best, ....    00  15  00  11 

Table  knives  and  forks,  and  pocket  knives  33  per  cent,  less 
in  1843. 

Spades  and  shovels,  20  per  cent.  less. 

Cross  cut  and  mill  saws,  12|  per  cent.  less. 

Wood  screws,  though  prohibited  by  duty,  were  at  least  20 
per  cent  lower,  and  of  a  superior  quality  to  those  formerly 
imported. 

Statement  showing  the  relative  prices  of  leading  styles  of  Dry  Goods 
on  the  1st  of  Jan.  1841,  and  the  1st  Jan.  1843. 

Jan.  1841.  Jan.  1843. 

Cotton  osnaburgs, yd.,       8    to  lOc.  6J  to    7^c. 

|  brown  shirtings, "         6J  to    8|c.  4J  to    6Jc. 

"  yd.  wide.  "         8|  to  lie.  6J  to    8£c. 

Dom.  prints,  staple  styles,     12J  to  18c.  8J  to  12|c. 

The  prices  of  bleached  goods  had  changed  in  the  same 
ratio.  Cloths  and  cassimeres  and  satinets,  reduced  not  less 
than  33J  per  cent. 

The  effect  of  the  tariff  on  calicoes,  or  prints,  these  mer- 
chants said,  was  probably  as  great  as  on  any  other  article. 
During  the  year  1840,  large  quantities  of  British  prints  were 
imported  that  cost  from  22c.  to  28c.  per  yard  ;  and  in  1843, 
prints  of  as  good  quality  were  produced  in  this  country  as 
low  as  15c.,  which  entirely  excluded  British  prints  from  our 
markets. 

The  tariff  also  had  a  tendency,  they  said,  to  reduce  the 
price  of  foreign  goods.  For  example  :  Irish  linens  were  im- 
ported in  1841,  duty  free  ;  in  1843  they  paid  a  duty  of  25 
per  cent,  and,  with  the  duty  added,  were  20  per  cent,  lower 


324  THE  PROTECTIVE  Si'STEM.  [Chap.  XIII. 

than  in  1841.  English  and  French  cloths  and  cassimeres  in 
1841  paid  a  duty  of  38  per  cent,  and  in  1843  paid  40  per 
cent,  and  were  20  per  cent  lower  than  in  1841. 

The  list  embraces  many  other  articles  of  domestic  and  for- 
eign dry  goods,  which  had  fallen  in  about  the  same  pro- 
portion. 

The  importations  of  coin  and  bullion  were,  during  the  vear 
ending  September  30th,  1841,  $4,988,633  ;  in  1842,  $4,087,- 
016  ;  in  1843,  $23,741,641  !  the  largest  importation  of  spe- 
cie that  had  ever  been  made  in  any  one  year.  Large  amounts, 
on  the  contrary,  had  usually  been  exported  to  pay  balances 
against  us  in  foreign  countries.  Of  the  amount  of  coin  and 
bullion  imported,  $3,118,399  was  exported  ;  leaving  more 
than  20  millions  as  the  amount  of  importations  over  and  above 
the  amount  exported. 

It  should  be  remembered,  too,  in  the  comparison  of  prices 
of  goods,  that  in  1841,  money  was  scarce,  and  the  rate  of  in- 
terest high  ;  and  in  1843  money  was  more  plentiful,  and  the 
rate  of  interest  low. 

A  member  of  Congress  from  the  State  of  Indiana,  stated, 
at  Washington,  in  the  winter  of  1843-1844,  that  "the  tariff 
had  reduced  every  thing  the  West  had  to  sdl,  and  had  in- 
creased that  of  every  thing  that  section  had  to  buy ;"  and 
having  been  repeatedly  challenged  to  name  one  article,  said 
salt  had  been  increased  100  per  cent.  This  led  to  an  inquiry, 
by  the  editor  of  a  New  York  city  paper,  who  received  state- 
ments of  prices  at  three  different  points  in  that  State,  on  the 
1st  of  January,  1844.  The  statements  came  from  unques- 
tionable authority. 

At  Indianapolis,  the  Capital  of  the  State,  prices  were  as 
follows  : 

Jan.  1842.  Jan.  1844. 

Salt,  per  bushel $1  00  50  cents. 

Iron,  per  pound, 6  5 

Brass  kettles,  per  pound, 75  62     " 

Cotton  shirting,  per  yard, 12 \     8  to     9     " 

Hardware  and  cutlery  had  fallen  since  1842,  10  per  cent. 
Nails  were  cheaper  by  1J  c.  per  pound. 
Buttons  had  fallen  100  per  cent 
Pins  remained  the  same. 

At  South  Bend,  the  prices  were,  according  to  the  statement 
from  that  place,  as  follows  : 


1844]  EFFECTS  OF  THF  TARIFF.  325 

Jan.  1842.  *an.  1844.     U 

Mackinaw  blankets,  per  pair, $10  00  $8  00       1? 

Nails,  cut,  per  100  pounds, 9  50  to  10  00  7  00 

Heavy  sheetings,  wide,  per  yard,.. 12J  10 

|  brown  shirtings,  8  6J 

Inch  wood  screws,  per  gross,.! 81  fr2i 

Pins,  perpack, 87J  80 

Bar  iron,  domestic,  per  100  Ibs.,    5  50  to  6  50     4   00  to  5  50 
Swedes  and  English  had  fallen  in  the  same  ratio. 

Steel,  American,  per  cwt 12  50  10  00 

Round  rolled  iron,  under  i  in.,  10  00  to  12  50  9  00   x£- 

The  average  on  satinets,  about  40  per  cent,  less  than  in 
1842.  On  jeans,  from  40  to  50  per  cent.  less.  Domestic  and 
foreign  goods  generally,  25  per  cent.  less. 

The  goods  were  transported  from  New  York,  in  both  years, 
by  the  same  route. 

At  Lafayette,  the  current  prices  of  the  following  articles 
•were :  r 

Jan.  1842.  Jan.  1844.  \ 

Onondaga  salt,  per  barrel, $5  25  $187 

Kanawha  salt,  per  barrel, 375  225 

Bar  iron,  per  pound, 9     4|  to  5 

Cotton  sheeting,  good,  per  yard,  12  to         16     9"  to  10      . 

The  opening  of  the  Wabash  canal  from  Lafayette  to  Toledo,  -x 
reduced  the  cost  of  transportation  on  Onondaga  salt,  and  con- 
sequently its  price ;  but  it  did  not  affect  the  Kanawha  salt 
and  bar  iron,  as  they  came  down  the  Ohio  river  to  the  mouth 
of  the  Wabash,  and  thence  up  that  river  to  Lafayette. 

The  following  named  articles  and  their  prices  were  pub- 
lish ad  in  the  New  York  Prices  Current  for  March,  1842,  and 
March,  1844. 

March  1842.  March  1814. 

Coal,  Liverpool  Orel,  per  ch. 9  00         7  00  to  8  25 

"    Newcastle,  fine  and  cor.  7  50  to  8  50         6  00  to  6  75 

"    Scotch, 6  00  to  6  50         6  00  to  6  50 

"    Sidney  and  Pictou 6  50  to  7  00         6  00  to  6  25 

"    Anthracites  2,000  Ibs.,     6  00  to  7  50         4  75  to  5  50 
Cloths,  common  woolen,  by 

the  piece,  per  yard, . ...   1  37  to  1  75         1  20  to  1  55 
Domestic  goods. 

Shirtings,        brown,  }. ...          41  to      5|  41  to       6 

do  "     wide . .         5|  to      7  -  6-  7 

do  bleached,....          7 "to        9  5  to         8 

do  Sea  Island,..        10  to      12  7  to       11 


326  THE    PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM  [Chap.  XIII 

Calico,  blue, 10  to      14  7  to      12 

Plaids, 7  to      10  9  to       11 

Stripes,  fast  colors, 7  to      10  8  to       10 

Satinets, 40  to  1  25  35  to       TO 

Cotton  yarn,  No.  5  to  13, 

perlb 15  to      17  14  to       16 

do         No.  14  to  19  ?o.         19  to      20  —  to       17 

Glass,  Eng.  crown,  per  50  ft. 

6  by  8  to  10  by  13,....  4  00  to  4  50  3  50  to  4  00 
10  by  14  to  12  by  17,..  5  00  to  5  50  4  50  to  5  00 
12  by  18  to  16  by  26,.  6  00  to  7  00  5  50  to  6  50 
N.  Y.  cylinder,  7  by  9 

to  8  by  10, 2  75  to   3  00        2  75  to  3  00 

do  10  by  12   to 

10  by  14....  3  25  to   3  50        3  25  to  3  50 
Several  other  kinds   are  quoted,  showing  a  reduction  of 
about  10  per  cent. 

Brass  kettles  imported  from  England,  cost  37  cents  per 
pound,  in  1842.  In  1844  a  domestic  article  of  a  better  quality 
was  sold  at  the  same  price. 

Smoothing  irons,  sometimes  called  sad  irons,  in  1842,  4|  to 
4|  cents  per  pound  ;  in  1844,  from  3J  to  3J  cents. 


1844.J  ATTEMPT  TO  REVISE  THE  TARIFF.  327 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

Attempt  to  revise  the  tariff  in  1844.    McDuffie's  bill  in  the  Senate,  and  debate 
thereon.     Further  effects  of  the  tariff.     Southern  opposition. 

ALTHOUGH  a  decided  majority  of  Democrats  had  been  elected 
to  the  new  Congress,  an  attempt  to  reduce  the  tariff  at  its 
first  session,  1843-1844,  proved  unsuccessful.  The  President 
made  a  slight  allusion  to  the  subject.  He  said,  "  the  promi- 
nent interest  of  every  important  pursuit  of  life,  requires  for 
success,  permanency  and  stability  and  legislation.  These 
can  only  be  attained  by  adopting,  as  the  basis  of  action,  mod- 
eration in  all  things,"  &c.  "  No  one  section  of  the  country 
should  desire  to  have  its  supposed  interests  advanced  at  the 
sacrifice  of  all  others  ;"  and  he  recommended  concession  and 
compromise  for  the  sake  of  union. 

Mr.  M'Duffie,  of  S.  C.,  now  in  the  Senate,  at  an  early  day 
[December  19,]  introduced  a  bill,  proposing,  in  substance,  to 
revive  the  compromise  act  which  had  been  suspended  by  the 
act  of  1842. 

Mr.  Rhett,  of  the  same  State,  on  the  3d  of  January,  intro- 
duced a  resolution  instructing  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means  to  report  a  bill  of  a  similar  nature.  The  resolution 
was  rejected,  67  to  112.  Whereupon, 

Mr.  Black,  of  Ga.,  offered  a  resolution  of  instruction  to  the 
same  Committee,  to  report  a  bill  revising  the  tariff,  and  im- 
posing duties  on  the  principle  of  revenue  only,  which  was  re- 
jected by  a  majority  of  one  vote :  Yeas,  83  ;  nays,  84. 

One  or  two  other  members  of  the  House  made  similar  at- 
tempts, with  no  better  success.  An  indisposition  to  antici- 
pate the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  was 
alleged  as  a  reason  why  some  of  the  friends  of  a  reduced 
tariff  voted  againat  the  resolutions. 

In  the  Senate,  Jan.  9,  Mr.  Evans,  from  the  Committee  on 
Finance,  reported  two  resolutions  :  1st,  declaring  the  bill 
to  revive  the  act  of  1833,  to  be  a  revenue  bill  within  the 
meaning  of  the  Constitution,  and  can  not  therefore  originate 
in  the  Senate.  2d.,  that  it  be  indefinitely  postponed. 

The  debate  continued  until  the  13th  of  February,  when  the 
report  and  resolutions  were  for  the  present  laid  on  the  table. 


328  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIV 

The  debate  was  a  few  days  after  resumed,  and  continued  un- 
til the  31st  of  May,  when 

Mr.  Allen,  of  0.,  moved  to  substitute  for  the  resolutions  of 
the  Committee  on  Finance,  one  declaring*  that  "the  duties 
imposed  by  existing  laws  on  importations  are  unjust,  and 
ought  to  be  reduced."  Decided  in  the  negative,  18  to  25. 

The  vote  was  then  taken  on  the  lirst  resolution  reported  by 
the  Committee,  and  carried  :  Yeas,  33  ;  nays,  4  ;  Messrs. 
Hay  wood,  of  N.  C.,  Huger  and  M'Duffie,  of  S.  C.,  and  Wood- 
bury,  of  N.  H. 

Those  who  took  part  in  the  debate,  which  was  mainly  on 
the  subject  of  protection,  were  Messrs.  Evans,  of  Maine, 
Hunting  ton,  of  Conn.,  Phelps,  of  Vt.,  Bates  and  Choate,  of 
Mass.,  Simmons,  of  R.  I.,  Berrien,  of  Ga.,  and  Dayton,  of  N.  J., 
in  opposition  to  Mr.  M'Duffie's  bill,  and  in  defense  of  the  tar- 
iff ;  and  Messrs.  M'Duffie,  of  S.  C.,  Benton,  of  Mo.,  Bagby  ol 
Ala.,  Wright,  of  N.  Y.,  and  Woodbury,  of  N.  H.,  against  a 
high  protective  tariff. 

Mr.  Berrien,  who  had  not  been  an  advocate  of  the  tarift 
system,  was  opposed  to  disturbing  the  existing  tariff.  There 
had  been  since  August,  1842,  he  said,  a  sensible  improve- 
ment in  the  condition  of  the  country  ;  whether  because  of 
that  tariff,  or  in  spite  of  it,  was  not  a  subject  of  his  present 
inquiry.  He  stated  the  following  facts  : 

1.  The  credit  of  the  Government    was  prostrate,  and  has 
been  redeemed.     Its  stock  is  again  above  par. 

2.  The  treasury  was  empty  ;  it  is  now  replenished. 

3.  The  commerce  and  navigation  of  the  country  have  in- 
creased. 

4.  Its  agricultural  condition  has  improved. 

5.  There  has  been  a  marked  improvement  of  our  great  sta- 
ple. 

6.  A  reduction  in  the  prices  of  almost  all,  if  not  absolutely 
of  every  article  of  consumption. 

7.  To  crown  the  whole,  every  branch  of  industry  has  been 
stimulated  to  increased  activity,  and  confidence  has  been  re- 
stored.    These  things,  I  apprehend,  are  true.     The  tariff  of 
1842  has  been  in  efficient    operation  but  little  more  than  a 
year,  and  these  effects  have  followed.     Looking  to  this  state 
of  things,  I  ask,  is  this  a  time  for  excitement,  for  agitation,  for 
interfering  with  the  pursuits  of  industry  ?     Is  this  a  time  for 
change,  for  such  a  change  as  the  adoption  of  this  bill  would 
bring  us  ? 

Mr.  Choate,  in  the  course  of  his  speech,  said  :     The  gen- 


1844.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  329 

tleman  [Mr.  M'Duffie]  did  not  inquire  whether  the  bill  pro- 
tected home  industry  or  not.  It,  laid  aside  all  considerations 
of  that  kind.  All  the  capital,  labor,  and  experience  that  had 
been  devoted  to  manufactures,  were  to  be  thrown  aside. 
Millions  of  hands  might  want  employment,  and  millions  of 
mouths  might  want  bread  ;  but  the  bill  had  nothing  in  it  of 
protection.  He  had  found  no  example  for  such  a  bill  in  the 
.journals  of  our  legislation,  nor  in  the  early  history  of  the 
Government.  There  was  a  question  involved  in  this  subject 
which  was  an  open  and  a  practical  question.  We  were  told 
by  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Missouri,  [Mr.  Benton,] 
that  the  protection  afforded  by  the  proposed  bill  would  t>e 
such  as  would  enable  the  manufacturers  to  exist.  The  Sen- 
ator came  to  us,  not  as  an  enemy,  but  as  a  friend  to  the  pro- 
tective system.  He  had  supported  that  system  through  his 
course  in  this  body.  The  Senator  had  voted  for  the  tariff  of 
1824,  which  had  laid  deep  and  immovable  the  foundation  of 
the  system.  He  had  voted  for  the  tariff  of  1828,  reluctantly, 
it  is  true,  but  still  he  voted  for  it.  He  voted  for  the  bill  of 
1832,  but  that  \vas  a  reduction  to  some  extent  ;  yet  still  it 
was  a  protective  bill  ;  and  he  voted  against  the  compromise 
act.  But  he  now  counsels  a  vast  change,  which  could  not  be 
made,  as  he  [Mr.  C.]  was  firmly  convinced,  without  ruining 
all  the  interests  which  had  so  long  been  sheltered  under  the 
system.  He  had  told  us  that  the  minimum  must  be  abol- 
ished ;  that  ad  valorem  duties  should  be  resorted  to  ;  that  lux- 
uries should  be  taxed,  and  necessaries  exempted  from  duty  ; 
and  that  no  duty  should  exceed  thirty-three  per  cent. 

Air.  C.  went  on  to  show  that  the  tariff  of  1789  recognized 
the  principle  of  protection,  and  was  for  the  time  an  ade- 
quate protection  ;  and  that  in  object  and  spirit,  it  was  similar 
to  the  acts  of  1816  and  1824.  The  act  of  1789  did  not  pur- 
port to  be  a  revenue  tariff,  or  a  protective  tariff ;  these  dis- 
tinctions belong  only  to  the  polemics  of  modern  times.  The 
provisions  of  that  act  were  intended  to  protect  the  rising 
mechanical  labor  of  Young  America.  A  list  of  enumerated 
articles  were  taxed  with  specific  duties,  expressly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  protection.  The  act  was  made  to  protect,  and  did 
protect  industry,  as  fully  as  any  act  that  had  been  passed 
since.  In  April,  1789,  just  after  the  first  Congress  had  taken 
their  oaths,  when  every  member  knew  well  the  meaning  and 
intent  of  the  constitutional  provisions  in  regard  to  the  reve- 
nue power,  the  subject  was  taken  up.  Mr.  Madison  pro- 
posed that  Congress  should  pass  a  short  act  in  ten  lines  sole- 


330    .  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIV. 

ly  for  the  purpose  of  raising  a  revenue.  He  advocated  dis- 
patch ;  and  it  was  necessary  that  the  law  should  be  passed 
in  time  to  meet  the  spring  importations.  His  object  was 
revenue  entirely  ;  and  he  proposed  a  uniform  rate  of  duty  of 
five  per  cent,  and  some  few  specific  duties.  If  that  bill  had 
passed,  we  should  have  had  that  black  swan — that  monster 
which  the  world  never  saw — a  revenue  tariff.  But  it  did 
not  pass.  Mr.  Fitzsimons,  of  Pennsylvania,  desired,  he  said, 
to  see  a  system  established  that  would  promote  the  whole  of 
the  interests  of  the  country,  agricultural,  commercial,  and 
manufacturing.  He  hesitated  not  to  put  his  opinions  in  com- 
petition with  the  transcendent  mind  of  Mr.  Madison,  and  to 
propose  a  system  of  protection  of  American  industry.  In 
that  brief  deliberation,  we  had,  in  petto,  the  whole  argument 
on  this  subject.  It  was  admitted  that  Mr.  Madison's  bill 
would  bring  more  money  into  the  Treasury  than  the  other  ; 
but  it  was  said  that  it  was  more  important  to  frame  a  bill 
that  would  protect  the  rising  manufacturespf  America.  Con- 
gress proceeded,  therefore,  to  frame  a  bill,  each  article  being 
brought  forward  and  separately  decided  upon. 

Mr.  C.  read  statements  of  the  sentiments  of  General  Wash- 
ington, Mr.  Jefferson,  Mr.  Dallas,  and  others,  in  favor  of  the 
encouragement  of  manufactures  by  protective  duties.  Pass- 
ing strange  would  it  have  been  if  the  great  men  who  formed 
the  Congress  of  1789  had  not  passed  a  law  encouraging 
manufactures,  knowing,  as  they  did,  that  it  was  one  of  the 
leading  objects  of  the  Union  to  protect  our  industry  from 
foreign  competition.  He  read  also  from  South  Carolina 
writers  similar  sentiments.  He  showed  that  the  prevailing 
sentiment  among  those  that  founded  the  Government  was, 
that  the  true  intent  of  the  Constitution  was  to  foster  and  pro- 
tect American  industry. 

Having  proved  that  the  tariffs  of  1816  and  1824  were  in 
principle  identical  with  that  of  1789,  he  proceeded  to  show 
that  the  duties  under  the  tariff  of  1824  transcended  those  of 
1789,  as  far  as  the  duties  of  1842  exceeded  the  duties  of  1824. 
The  duties  which  were  sufficient  for  revenue  and  protection 
in  1789,  had  become  insufficient  for  both  in  1824  ;  and  the 
duties  that  were  adequate  in  1 824,  had,  for  the  same  reasons, 
become  insufficient  in  1842.  Mr.  C.  adverted  to  the  condi- 
tion of  our  country,  and  that  of  foreign  countries,  the  wars 
in  Europe,  and  other  events  which  had  their  influence  upon 
our  industry,  previous  to  the  tariff  of  1816,  when  the  general 
peace  had  rendered  higher  duties  necessary  for  the  protec- 
tion of  manufactures. 


1844.]  BILL  REJECTED  IN  THE  HOUSE.  331 

Mr.  C.  spoke  of  the  general  feeling  on  this  subject  ;  and  of 
the  manner  in  which  Senators  were  carried  away  by  their 
feelings.  It  was  Massachusetts  arguments  that  were  an- 
swered ;  it  was  the  profits  of  Massachusetts  manufacturers 
that  were  stated  ;  and  if  extraneous  questions  were  referred 
to,  the  topic  was  the  speculative  opinions  held  in  Massachu- 
setts on  some  subjects.  But  why  was  nothing  said  of  Penn- 
sylvania, the  State  that  had  made  all  the  tariffs,  while  Massa- 
chusetts had,  perhaps  mistaking  her  own  interests,  opposed 
the  tariffs  of  1816  and  1824  ?  Perhaps  the  great  reason  was 
the  great  number  of  votes  that  Pennsylvania  brought  into 
the  lists,  and  which  were  all  doubtful  ;  while  Massachusetts 
had  but  a  small  number  of  votes,  which  were  not  doubtful  at 

all Was  not  Massachusetts,  after  all,  a  useful 

member  of  the  Union  ?  What  would  be  gained  by  throwing 
her  back  upon  her  granite  ice,  forcing  her  to  dig  for  beans 
and  potatoes,  or  to  roam  the  world  for  freights  in  competition 
with  the  navigators  of  Hamburg  ?  He  presented  a  statement 
of  the  quantity  of  agricultural  produce  consumed  by  Massa- 
chusetts, and  which  was  derived  from  every  part  of  the 
Union  ;  and  concluded  by  saying,  if  you  will  be  just  to  Mas- 
sachusetts, she  will  be  a  blessing  to  you. 

While  this  debate  was  in  progress  in  the  Senate,  Mr.  Mc- 
Kay, from  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  in  the  House, 
on  the  8th  of  March,  reported  a  bill  which  had  for  some  time 
been  looked  for,  proposing  a  great  reduction  of  duties,  and 
adopting,  in  relation  to  most  articles,  the  ad  valorem  principle. 
Four  or  five  unsuccessful  motions  were  made  to  go  into  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  on  the  bill,  and  to  make  it  the  special 
order  of  the  day.  At  length,  on  the  22d  of  April,  the  House 
resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  bill,  by 
a  vote  of  104  to  94. 

The  debate  upon  the  bill  was  continued  until  the  8th  of 
May,  when  it  was  taken  out  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
and  reported  to  the  House  ;  and  on  the  10th,  it  was  laid  on 
the  table — equivalent  to  a  rejection — by  a  vote  of  105  to  99. 

Of  the  Democrats  who  voted  in  the  affirmative,  there  Avere 
from  Massachusetts  2  ;  Vermont,  1  ;  Connecticut,  2  ;  New 
York,  10  ;  Pennsylvania,  8  ;  Kentucky,  1— in  all,  28.  Only 
1  Whig,  Mr.  Chappell,  of  Georgia,,  voted  in  the  negative. 

A  result  so  gratifying  to  the  friends  of  protection  was 
probably  not  generally  anticipated.  The  announcement  of 
it  in  Niles'  Register  was  accompanied  by  the  following 
remark  : 


332  THE  PROTECTIVE   SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIV. 

"  This  result,  in  a  House  having  so  large  a  majority  of  the 
political  party  which  had  principally  identified  itself  with  the 
doctrine  of  '  free  trade  and  no  protection  duties/  may  be  con- 
sidered as  quieting  all  apprehension  on  the  part  of  the  friends 
of  the  existing  tariff.  It  is  now  fairly  the  law  of  the.  land,  hav- 
ing undergone  and  sustained  the  ordeal  of  party  trammels, 
of  foreign  effort,  and  of  'error  of  opinion.'  American  indus- 
try is  sustained,  American  interests  maintained,  and  Ameri- 
can prosperity  insured." 

The  opinion  pretty  extensively  prevailed,  that  the  fact  of 
an  approaching  presidential  election  had  no  inconsiderable 
influence  in  determining  this  question.  In  Pennsylvania  and 
some  other  Democratic  States,  the  popular  sentiment  was 
strong  in  favor  of  protection  ;  and  the  votes  ol  those  States 
•would  have  been  seriously  jeoparded  by  the  repeal  of  the 
tariff,  which,  it  was  believed,  had  been  the  principal  means 
of  the  acknowledged  improvement  in  the  condition  of  the 
country.  From  the  large  number  of  memorials,  with  their 
thousands  of  signers,  from  different  parts  of  the  country,  re- 
monstrating against  the  proposed  change  in  the  tariff,  it  can 
not  be  doubted  that  the  popular  vote  would  have  been  mate- 
rially affected  by  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

That  there  was  considerable  solicitude  in  regard  to  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania,  was  inferred  from  other  circumstances 
than  the  fate  of  McKay's  tariff  bill.  Mr.  Polk,  the  Demo- 
cratic candidate  for  President,  had,  while  in  Congress,  acted 
with  the  opponents  of  protection.  And  in  1843,  when  a  can- 
didate for  Governor  of  the  State  of  Tennessee,  he  wrote  a  letter 
for  publication,  addressed  to  the  people  of  that  State,  in 
which  he  said  :  "  I  had  steadily,  during  the  period  I  was  a 
Representative  in  Congress,  been  opposed  to  a  protective 
policy,  as  my  recorded  votes  and  public  speeches  prove. 
Since  I  retired  from  Congress,  I  had  held  the  same  opinion. 
In  the  present  canvass  for  Governor,  I  had  avowed  my  opposi- 
tion to  the.  tariff  act  of  the.  late  Whig  Congress,  as  being  highly 
protective  in  its  character,  and  not  designed  by  its  authors 
as  a  revenue  measure;." 

In  June,  1844,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  Judge  Kane,  of  Penn- 
sylvania, who  had  addressed  him  on  the  subject  of  the  tariff. 
The  general  tone  of  the  letter  was  considered  as  materially 
different  from  that  of  other  communications  on  the  same  sub- 
ject intended  for  publication  in  other  States,  and  especially 
from  the  v  res.sod  by  him  before  his  nomination  for 

the  Presidency.  In  this  letter  he  says  : 


1844.]  THE  TARirF  STILL  THREATENED.  333 

"  In  adjusting  the  details  of  a  revenue  tariff,  I  have  hereto- 
fore sanctioned  such  moderate  discriminating  duties  as  would 
produce  the  amount  of  revenue  needed,  and  at  the  same  time 
afford  reasonable  incidental  protection  to  our  home  industry. 
I  am  opposed  to  a  tariff  for  protection  merely,  and  not  for 
revenue.  Acting  upon  these  general  principle?,  it  is  well 
known  that  I  gave  my  support  to  the  policy  of  General  Jack- 
son's administration  on  this  subject.  I  voted  against  the 
tariff  act  of  1828.  I  voted  for  the  act  of  1832,  which  con- 
tained modifications  of  some  of  the  objectionable  provisions 
of  the  act  of  1828.  As  a  member  of  the  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  I  gave  my  as- 
sent to  a  bill  reported  by  that  Committee  in  December,  1832, 
making  further  modifications  of  the  act  of  1828,  and  making 
also  discriminations  in  the  imposition  of  the  duties  which  it 
proposed.  That  bill  did  not  pass,  but  was  superseded  by  the 
compromise  bill,  for  which  I  voted. 

"  In  my  judgment,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  ex- 
tend, as  far  as  it  may  be  practicable  to  do  so,  by  its  revenue 
laws  and  all  other  means  within  its  power,  fair  and  just  pro- 
tection to  all  the  great  interests  of  the  whole  Union,  embrac- 
ing agriculture,  manufactures,  commerce,  and  navigation." 

This  letter,  which  received  a  general  circulation  through 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  was  supposed  to  have  aided  essen- 
tially in  securing  to  him  the  vote  of  that  State. 

The  designs  of  the  party  against  the  tariff,  however,  were 
not  abandoned.  A  member  of  Congress,  in  the  course  of  a 
speech,  made  the  following  declaration  :  "  The  Democratic 
party  has  been  taunted  with  a  fear  of  passing  the  late  tariff 
bill.  I  can  tell  gentlemen  that  the  present  tariff  will  bo  re- 
duced as  soon  as  we  are  in  full  power.  We  very  well  knew 
that  it  was  of  no  use  to  pass  it  in  the  House  now,  as  we  have 
not  the  majority  in  the  Senate.  Give  us  a  majority  there, 
and  then  see  if  we  do  not  pass  the  bill.  We  will  do  it  ;  for 
such  is  our  purpose — such- is  our  resolute  determination  " 
But  to  whatever  cause  the  failure  of  the  bill  was  to  be  attri- 
buted, it  was  evident  that  the  doom  of  the  tariff  of  1842 
wculd  be  stayed  for  another  term  of  two  years  ;  and  that 
the  country  would  be  left  to  enjoy  for  at  least  that  brief  period 
the;  fruits  of  an  efficient  protective  policy. 

Congress  adjourned  the  17th  of  June.  The  Presidential 
campaign  had  been  fully  opened.  The  candidates  were  in  the 
field.  The  tariff  was  a  distinctive  and  prominent  issue 
between  the  two  great  parties.  It  was  discussed  at  every 


334  T1IE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIV 

political  meeting.  The  result  was  the  election  of  the  anti- 
protection  candidate  for  President,  and  of  a  majority  of  mem- 
bers of  Congress,  and  of  a  sufficient  number  of  State  Legis- 
latures to  secure  a  majority  in  the  Senate,  and  thus  to  give 
to  the  Democratic  party  the  entire  control  of  the  Govern- 
ment. 

Although  the  ascendency  of  the  Democratic  party  was  re- 
garded as  unfavorable  to  the  permanence  of  the  tariff,  the 
hope  was  to  some  extent  indulged,  that  its  continued  favor- 
able operation  would  in  a  great  measure  allay  the  opposition 
to  the  measure,  and  protect  it  against  the  meditated  assault 
of  its  opponents.  Its  operation  was  therefore  watched  with 
interest  by  its  friends,  who  had  the  satisfaction  of  perceiving 
in  its  effects  the  fulfillment  of  their  own  predictions,  and  the 
refutation  of  the  arguments  by  which  it  had  been  opposed. 

It  had  been  objected  to  the  passage  of  the  bill  of  1842,  as 
usual,  that  "  protective  duties  impose  grievous  burdens  upon 
all  other  classes  of  the  community  for  the  benefit  of  the  man- 
ufacturers f  or  as  one  speaker  remarked  in  the  debate,  that 
"  the  effect  of  protective  duties  is  to  keep  up  the  prices  here 
far  beyond  the  prices  at  which  they  could  be  imported  from 
abroad  at  a  mere  revenue  duty."  The  statements  of  prices  of 
different  manufactures  before  and  after  the  passage  of  the  act 
of  1842,  given  in  the  preceding  Chapter,  and  showing  a  great 
decline  instead  of  an  increase  of  prices  on  protected  articles, 
were  regarded  as  confirming  the  theory  of  protectionists, 
that  when  the  manufacture  of  an  article  is  encouraged  by 
an  adequate  protective  duty,  competition  will  reduce  the 
price. 

Another  objection  to  the  bill  was,  that  the  high  duties  it 
proposed,  would,  by  checking  importations,  diminish  instead 
of  increasing  the  revenue.  It  was  foreseen  and  admitted  by 
its  friends,  that  the  revenue  would  be  small.  The  large  sup- 
ply, in  market,  of  foreign  goods  remaining  from  the  excessive 
importations  of  former  years,  a1]d  the  inability  of  the  people 
to  purchase,  would  necessarily  prevent  the  usual  importa- 
tions. Such  proved  to  be  the  fact.  The  fiscal  year  had  com- 
menced on  the  1st  of  October  and  ended  on  the  30th  of  Sep- 
tember. The  tariff  act  of  1842  took  effect  the  30th  of  August, 
one  month  before  the  close  of  the  fiscal  year.  A  law  having 
been  passed  changing  the  close  of  the  fiscal  year  from  the 
30th  of  September  to  the  £0th  of  June,  the  next  fiscal  year 
embraced  but  nine  months.  During  -this  period  the  net 
revenue  from  duties  on  imports  amounted  to  only  $10,973,982, 


1843.]  EFFECTS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  335 

Such,  however,  was  the  increase  of  importations  for  the 
fall  trade,  that,  as  appears  from  the  report  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  the  net  revenue  from  customs,  from  July  1 
to  September  30,  1843,  was  $6,132,272,  or  about  one-half  as 
much  as  was  received  during  the  whole  year  ending  Septem- 
ber 30,  1842,  under  the  low  tariff. 

The  framers  of  the  bill,  as  has  been  stated  in  a  preceding 
Chapter,  estimated  the  revenue  under  the  operation  of  the 
act,  at  $26,000,000  to  $27,000,000.  The  net  revenue  from 
customs  during  the  year  ending  the  30th  of  June,  1844,  was 
$26,183,570;  in  1845,  $27,528,112;  in  1846,  $26,712,608; 
being  sufficient  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  treasury. 

Following  the  passage  of  the  tariff  act  of  1842,  and  con- 
sidered as  one  of  its  beneficial  effects,  was  the  increase  of  the 
number  of  manufactories.  Not  only  was  there  an  increase  of 
investment  in  manufactures  in  the  Northern  and  Eastern 
States,  but  factories  on  an  extensive  scale  were  built  in  a 
number  of  the  Southern  and  South- Western  States.  New 
branches  of  manufactures  also  were  brought  into  existence. 
In  calculating  the  benefits  of  this  extension  of  the  manufac- 
turing business,  we  must  consider  the  increased  demand  lor 
labor  produced  by  it,  and,  in  general,  as  one  of  its  natural 
results,  at  increased  wages. 

The  opinion  of  many  of  its  friends  as  to  the  policy  of  this 
protective  measure,  was  confirmed  by  the  effect  it  produced 
abroad,  especially  in  Great  Britain,  who  had  found  her  best 
customer  in  the  United  States.  A  London  paper  speaking  on 
the  subject,  said  : 

"  The  dangers  to  which  our  trade  is  exposed  by  the  grow- 
ing manufacturing  system  of  the  United  States,  are  vet  far 
from  having  reached  their  climax.  The  progress  already 
made  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  in  furnishing  the  mar- 
ket there  with  an  independent  supply  of  manufactured  arti- 
cles, although  serious,  is  naj  yet  wholly  decisive  against  us. 
As  yet,  the  American  has  only  successfully  competed  with  us 
in  one  article — that  of  coarse  cottons.  The  transatlantic 
manufacturer  now  enjoys  an  almost  undisturbed  monopoly  of 
the  whole  American  market  in  this  article.'  But  the  evil  does 
not  rest  here.  The  loss  of  the  United  States  as  a  market  for 
our  coarser  fabrics,  is  a  serious .  blow  ;  inasmuch  as  it  incul- 
cates a  fatal  lesson  for  us,  in  teaching  the  Americans  the 
possibility  of  speedily  possessing  a  self-dependent  market. 
But  the  domestic  manufacturer  of  America  does  not  confine 
himself  to  his  home  market.  We  now  meet  him  in  other 


3$  fl  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIV 

markets,  where  we  were  formerly  in  the  undisputed  ascend- 
ant ;  and  the  late  experience  of  most  of  the  British  dealers 
with  Brazil,  will  testify  how  formidable  a  competitor  he 
has  already  become  at  Rio  Janeiro,  at  Bahia,  and  Per- 
nambuco. 

"  In  competing  for  the  American  market,  with  the  transat- 
lantic manufacturer,  the  English  manufacturer  labors  under 
many  disadvantages.  Some  of  these  are  necessarily  incident 
to  his  position.  But  there  are  others  which  spring  entirely 
from  erroneous  legislation  [on  the  part  of  Great  Britain.] 
The  tax  on  raw  cotton  is  one  of  the  most  impolitic  fea- 
tures which  yet  characterize  our  commercial  code.  En- 
hancing to  an  unnecessary  extent  the  price  of  our  productions, 
it  sends  them  to  the  American  market  under  every  disad- 
vantage— increased  as  that  price  already  is  by  transport  dues 
and  tariff  exactions.  Opposed  to  these  disadvantages  are 
the  high  price  of  labor  and  the  imperfect  machinery  in  the 
United  States.  The  latter,  under  the  encouragement  afforded 
by  the  continuance  of  restrictions  on  our  intercourse  with  the 
Americans,  is  daily  improving  in  character  and  capability  ; 
ar  i  as  fast  as  it  improves,  the  cost  of  production  will  neces- 
sarily fall.  When  we  consider,  in  connection  with  this 
necessarily  gradual  diminution  in  the  cost  of  production,  the 
advantage  which  the  American  manufacturer  enjoys  in  the 
inexhaustible  water-power  with  which  he  is  supplied  by  a 
thousand  streams,  we  see  at  once  the  magnitude  of  the  dan- 
ger we  incur  by  adding  one  inducement  more  to  drive  him 
into  competition  with  us  in  the  manufacture  of  the  liner 
fabrics,  which  circumstances  might  render  successful  more 
speedily  than  we  may  now  anticipate. 

"  But,  after  all,  the  American  manufacturing  system  has 
hitherto  been  driven  on  by  circumstances.  Necessity  im- 
pelled the  Americans  to  manufacture — a  necessity  to  which 
we  ourselves  gave  rise.  We  persevere  in  so  doing  ;  but 
there  is  yet  time  for  serious  consideration,  for  wise  and  pru- 
dent action.  If  our  trade  were  free  with  her,  America  is  at 
thia  moment  in  a  condition  to  offer  us  a  most  profitable  ex- 
change. She  is  abundant  in  every  species  of  grain,  but.  con- 
sidering the  vast  extent  of  her  wants,  deficient  in  goods. 
England  has  her  stores  crammed  with  the  wares  by  which 
those  wants  might  be  supplied.  Whither  will  she  send  them  ?" 

The  solicitude  felt  in  Great  Britain  in  the  election  of  1844, 
showed  that  they  were  fully  aware  of  the  tendency  of  our 
protective  tariff  to  relieve  this  country  from  its  dependence 


1844. 


BRITISH  INTERFERENCE 


337 


on  British  capital  and  labor  for  the  necessaries  and  comforts 
of  life.  A  London  paper,  in  18-14,  deprecated  the  election  of 
Mr.  Clay,  because  he  was  identified  with  the  cause  of  the 
Whigs  and  the  manufacturers,  "  who  aim  at  acquiring  a  mo- 
nopoly of  the  home  market  by  prohibitory  duties."  It  added  : 

"  Nor  can  we  wonder  that  such  is  the  policy  of  the  most 
respectable  and  intelligent  statesmen  of  America,  when  we 
consider  that  by  our  corn  laws  we  shut  the  door  in  the  face  of 
any  attempt  to  negotiate  a  commercial  arrangement  on  the 
footing  of  a  fair  and  substantial  reciprocity.  We  take  from 
the  United  States  but  that  which  we  can  not  possibly  do 
without  —  their  cotton  and  tobacco  ;  excluding  the  staple  pro- 
ducts of  the  great  agricultural  States  of  the  West,  by  a  slid- 
ing scale  ingeniously  framed,  so  as  to  throw  the  maximum 
amount  of  impediment  in  the  way  of  access  to  the  English 
market.*  Is  it  to  be  wondered  at,  then,  that  they  retaliate, 
and  meet  high  duties  on  American  flour  by  high  duties  on 
English  manufactures  ?  A  liberal  commercial  policy  three 
years  ago,  would  have  prevented  the  passing  of  the  restric- 
tive tariff  of  the.  United  States,  and  would  have  given  a  de- 
cided ascendency  in  that  country  to  free  trade  principles  and 
the  free  trade  party.  A  liberal  commercial  policy  adopted 
tea  years  hence,  may  fail  to  recover  what  previous  blunders 
h&ive  lost  us.  To  offer  to  admit  American  and  German  corn 
in  exchange  for  British  manufactures,  when  the  manufactur- 
ing system  of  Prussia,  Saxony,  and  New  England  have  ac- 
quired strength  and  become  consolidated,  will  be  very  like 
what  the  old  saying  describes  as  *  barring  the  door  after  the 
horse  is  stolen.'  n 

But  clearer  evidence  of  the  deep  interest  they  felt  in  the 
result  of  our  election,  was  furnished  in  their  meditated  cooper- 
ation with  the  anti-tariff  party  to  defeat  Mr.  Clay  and  the 
Whigs. 

The  London  Times  stated  that  a  subscription  had  been 
opened  to  raise  funds  to  circulate  free  trade  tracts  in  foreign 
countries  ;  and  that  some  of  these  tracts  were  to  be  printed 
in  New  York  for  circulation  in  the  United  States.  Another 
British  paper  gave  an  account  of  the  proceeds  and  subscrip- 

*  Some"  readers  m;iy  not  understand  the  nature  of  this  "  sliding  scale,"' 
established  by  the  famed  English  "corn  laws,"  and  intended  to  shut  out 
all  foreign  grain,  except  only  in  times  of  extreme  scarcity  to  preven*' 
starvation.  This  scale,  as  it  stood  in  1842,  will  be  found  on  a  subsequfar" 
page.  Corn  is  a  general  name  for  wheat,  rye,  oats,  barley,  and  lories, 

,  hoop, 


338  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIV 

tions  at  a  meeting  in  Manchester,  where  a  large  sum  was 
raised  for  the  purpose  above  mentioned. 

In  reference  to  these  proceedings  in  England,  an  American 
paper  observed  : 

"  We  ought  to  expect  that  foreigners  will  make  every  ex- 
ertion in  their  power  to  obtain  control  of  our  markets.  They 
find  that  other  nations  are  beginning  to  do  their  own  labor. 
They  buy  of  them  less  and  less  every  year.  It  thus  becomes 
a  matter  of  the  utmost  importance  to  persuade  other  nations, 
if  possible,  to  abandon  the  protective  policy.  Like  expert 
and  skillful  salesmen,  they  use  every  means  in  their  power 
to  make  us  believe  that  they  can  sell  us  goods  on  much  bet- 
ter terms  than  we  can  make  them  ourselves." 

To  what  extent,  or  whether  to  any  extent  or  not,  the  de- 
signs of  the  British  to  influence  our  election  were  carried  into 
effect,  we  have  not  the  means  of  knowing  ;  our  object  in 
alluding  to  the  movement,  which  was  undoubtedly  made  as 
stated  in  the  English  papers,  is  to  show  the  deep  concern 
felt  in  that  country,  in  the  election  of  1844,  which  would 
probably  determine  the  important  question,  whether  our  tar- 
iff policy  was  to  be  continued  or  overthrown.  From  the  ac- 
counts in  the  British  papers,  the  rejoicing  at  Mr.  Folk's  elec- 
tion was  principally  by  the  free  trade  party,  who  believed 
that  he  would  "  popularize  the  tariff,  and  place  the  commerce 
of  the  two  countries  on  a  more  liberal  and  satisfactory  basis." 

Although  the  election  secured  to  the  Democrats  majorities 
in  both  branches  of  Congress,  and  was  regarded  by  the 
friends  of  the  tariff  as  in  some  degree  ominous,  the  hope  was 
entertained,  that,  as  in  the  case  of  McKay's  bill,  from  the 
want  of  unanimity  among  the  Democratic  members,  the  act 
might  safely  pass  the  .ordeal  to  which  it  was  evidently  des- 
tined. Ferhaps  that  hope  was  strengthened  by  the  presump 
tion,  that  the  continued  beneficial  operations  of  the  tariff 
would  diminish  the  number  of  its  opponents. 

The  friends  of  the  tariff  professed  entire  satisfaction  with 
its  practical  working.  Manufacturing  continued  to  increase. 
Among  other  manufactures,  that  of  woolen  carpets  had  re- 
ceived a  new  impetus,  and  the  market  was  mainly  supplied 
by  the  domestic  fabric,  and  at  prices  as  low  as  those  of  even 
an  inferior  article  formerly  imported.  For  example  :  Brus- 
sels and  three-ply,  in  1841,  under  the  reduced  duty  imposed 
by  the  compromise  act,  of  about  33  cents  per  square  yard, 
cost  $1  60  to  $1  65  a  yard.  In  1844,  the  duty  was  65  cents 
on  three-ply,  and  the  price  $1  50.  The  duty  on  Brussels  was 


• 

1844.J  EFFECTS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  339 

55  cents,  and  the  price  was  $1  25.  Ingram  and  Venetian, 
under  the  reduced  duty  of  27  cents,  cost  80  cents.  In  1844, 
when  the  duty  was  35  cents  on  ing-rain  and  Venetian,  the 
price  was  65  cents.  What  rendered  the  contrast  more  strik- 
ing, is  the  fact,  that,  in  1841  and  1842,  trade  was  depressed, 
and  mechanical  labor  in  comparatively  little  demand. 

Wool  also  had  been  favorably  affected.  The  importation 
had  largely  fallen  off,  and  the  home  production  increased 
both  in  quantity  and  price.  In  the  Eastern  markets,  the 
price  of  Saxony  in  1844,  was  50  to  55  cents  ;  of  full  blood, 
45  to  47  ;  one-quarter  blood  and  common,  37  to  40  ;  being 
an  advance  of  about  30  per  cent. 

Hemp  had  been  little  cultivated,  except  in  Kentucky  ;  and 
nearly  the  whole  production  had  been  used  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  cotton  bagging  and  bale  rope.  The  country  had  been 
dependent  mainly  on  Russia  for  supplies  for  ships'  cordage 
and  other  purposes.  Our  imports  in  1840,  were  $686,777  ;  in 
1841,  $600,201  ;  in  1842,  $267,849  ;  in  1843,  (nine  months,) 
$228,882.  In  1844,  the  cultivation  had  been  extended  to 
Illinois  and  Missouri.  The  rapid  increase  of  the  cultivation 
of  this  article  appears  from  the  following  statement  of  hemp 
received  at  New  Orleans  :  In  1842,  1,214  bales  ;  in  1843, 
15,000  bales  ;  in  1844,  38,000  bales,  or  about  5,000  tuns  ; 
the  increase  being  almost  exclusively  from  Illinois  and  Mis- 
souri. Under  a  protective  duty  of  $40  a  tun,  the  price  was 
at  one  time  reduced  to  $55  a  tun. 

The  price  of  scarcely  any  article  experienced  a  greater  re- 
duction than  that  of  cotton  bagging  ;  an  article  used  only 
at  the  South.  The  price  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  was  in  1841,  26 
cents,  which  was  4  cents  higher  than  in  1840  ;  in  1842,  16 
cents  ;  in  1843,  13  cents  ;  in  1844,  10  cents  ;  and  yet  a  pro- 
position was  made  in  Congress  to  take  off  the  duty  on  cotton 
bagging  and  gunny  bags.  The  manufacture  had  been  greatly 
increased  by  the  protection  afforded  by  the  tariff  of  1842. 

The  iron  business  increased  with  a  rapidity  never  before 
known  in  this  or  any  other  country.  The  price  of  iron,  which 
had  considerably  fallen,  advanced  considerably  in  1845,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  unprecedented  demand  occasioned  by  the  Eu- 
ropean railroad  mania  and  other  causes.  In  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  the  number  of  manufactories  was  very  greatly 
increased.  From  Hunt's  Merchant's  Magazine  it  appeared, 
that,  in  1845,  there  were  in  the  United  States  540  blast  fur- 
naces, producing  450,000  tuns  of  pig  iron  ;  951  bloomeries, 
forges,  rolling-raills,  &c.,  yielding  291,600  tuns  of  bar,  hoop, 


340  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chop.  XIV 

and  sheet  boiler  and  other  wrought  iron,  30,000  tuns  blooms, 
121,500  tuns  castings.  The  consumption  of  iron  in  the  crude 
state,  was  estimated  at  $42,000,000  per  annum.  The  amount 
produced  in  all  continental  Europe  was  only  about  700,000 
tuns.  The  quantity  imported  into  the  United  States  in  1844, 
tvas  99,384  tuns,  valued  at  $3,484,499. 

John  Quincy  Adams,  in  an  address  to  his  constituents,  in 
October,  1844,  said  :  "The  tariff  of  1842  has  wrought  won- 
ders for  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  enacted — the  procure- 
ment of  an  adequate  revenue,  and  of  protection  for  the  native 
industry  and  free  labor  of  the  land.  It  has  fully  performed 
its  promise  in  the  production  of  revenue.  It  has  restored  the 
palsied  credit  of  the  nation,  filled  the  coffers  of  the  Treasury, 
provided  ample  means  for  defraying  the  current  expenses  of 
the  years  1842,  '43,  '44,  and  ;45,  and  already  paid  off  a  large 
proportion  of  the  heavy  debt  contracted  by  the  preceding  ad- 
ministration. But  the  tariff  has  also  afforded  protection  to 
the  free  labor  and  native  industry  of  the  country  ;  and  this, 
strange  to  say,  is  the  source  of  the  strongest  opposition  to 
the  enactment  of  the  tariff  when  it  was  carried  through, 
and  is  now  the  most  efficient  for  forcing  its  repeal. 

':<  Protection  is  the  price  of  allegiance.  Protection  is  the 
object  for  which  all  government  is  instituted.  When  a  gov- 
ernment ceases  to  protect,  it  must  cease  to  claim  obedience 
or  submission.  .  .  Protection  was  the  great  and  all  em- 
bracing cause,  I  might  say,  the  only  cause,  of  the  enactment, 
by  the  people,  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  .  . 
The  very  first  act  of  the  first  Congress,  after  its  organization, 
was  an  act  for  raising  revenue,  and  for  the  protection  and 
encouragement  of  manufactures.  Who  then  dared  to  ques- 
tion the  constitutional  right  of  manufacturers  to  encourage- 
ment and  protection  ?  The  next  act  was  one  for  imposing  duties 
on  turmage.  This  also  was  an  act  for  levying  revenue  ;  but 
its  primary  object  was  protection — protection  specially  to 
ship-builders — to  agriculture,  by  providing  a  market  for  tim- 
ber, iron,  sail  cloth,  cordage,  hemp  ;  to  commerce  and  navi- 
gation. All  this  was  done  by  laying  a  heavy  duty  on  the 
tunnage  of  foreign  ships,  and  a  very  light  one  upon  our  own. 
These  acts  as  measures  for  raising  revenue,  were  for  protec- 

iVtion  to  the  whole  Union." 

\^  While  the  people  of  the  Northern  States  were  rejoicing  in 
the  beneficent  effects  of  the  tariff  upon  the  industry  of  the 
country,  the  South  complained  as  bitterly  as  ever  of  oppres- 
sion and  unequal  taxation.  The  tariff  was  denounced  in  pub- 


1814.]  SOUTHERN  OPPOSITION.  341 

lie  meeting's  in  several  of  the  districts  in  South  Carolina,  and 
anti-tariif  associations  were  formed,  with  a  view  to  a  more 
systematic  and  effective  opposition.  At  a  meeting  in  the 
Beaufort  district  it  was 

"  Resolved,  That  we  believe  it  the  duty  of  South  Carolina 
to  redeem  her  solemn  pledges,  not  to  submit  to  a  tariff  of 
discriminating  duties  with  a  view  either  to  direct  or  inciden- 
tal protection,  which  we  regard  as  unconstitutional  and  op- 
pressive. 

"  That  we  believe  it  the  duty  of  the  Legislature,  at  its  next 
session,  to  call  a  Convention  of  the  State,  to  assemble  not 
later  than  May,  1845,  to  which  body  shall  be  left  the  mode 
and  measure  of  redress,  and  whose  decision  as  representing 
the  sovereignty  of  the  State,  we  pledge  ourselves  to  sustain." 

This  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the"  feeling*  and  sentiment  ex- 
pressed at  public  meetings  and  by  a  portion  of  the  public 
press  in  that  State.  The  recent  tariff  was  pronounced  "  one 
of  the  most  flagrant  breaches  of  one  of  the  commonest  rules 
of  honesty  that  ever  has  been  perpetrated  in  the  legislation 
of  a  free  country.  The  compromise  act  was  a  pledge  to  the 
opponents  of  the  tariff,  and  to  every  friend  of  the  Union,  that 
that  kind  of  legislation  which  had  endangered  the  peace  of 
the  country  should  be  no  more  resorted  to." 

The  project  of  a  Convention  of  the  Southern  States  to  con- 
sult on  some  plan  of  resistance  was  proposed  ;  but  after 
some  discussion  through  the  public  press,  and  after  due  de- 
liberation, the  scheme  was  abandoned.  It  was  deemed  the 
wiser  policy  to  await  the  installment  of  the  new  administra- 
tion. 

At  the  next  session  of  Congress,  1844-1845,  the  last  under 
Mr.  Tyler's  administration,  no  effort  was  made  to  repeal  or 
modify  the  tariff. 


342  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM  [Chap  XV 


CHAPTER    XV. 

President  Polk's  messages  on  duties.  Secretary  Walker's  report.  Debate  on 
the  bill  in  the  House — passed  by  the  House.  Debate  in.  the  Senate,  and  its 
passage. 

THE  inauguration  of  James  K.  Polk  took  place  the  4th  of 
March,  1845.  In  his  Inaugural  Address,  he  alludes  to  the 
subject  of  protection,  thus  : 

"  In  exercising  this  power  [of  taxation,]  by  levying  a  tar- 
iff of  duties  for  the  support  of  Government,  the  raising  of 
revenue  should  be  the  object,  and  protection  the  incident.  To 
reverse  this  principle,  and  make  prcteciion  the  object  and 
revenue  the  incident,  would  be  to  inflict  manifest  injustice 
upon  all  other  than  the  protected  interests.  In  levying  duties 
for  revenue,  it  is  doubtless  proper  to  make  such  discrimina- 
tions within  the  revenue  principle,  as  will  afford  incidental 
protection  to  our  home  interests.  Within  the  revenue  limit, 
there  is  a  discretion  to  discriminate  ;  beyond  that  limit,  the 
rightful  exercise  of  the  power  is  not  conceded.  .  .  The 
largest  portion  of  our  people  are  agriculturists.  Others  are 
employed  in  manufactures,  commerce,  navigation,  and  the 
mechanic  arts.  To  tax  one  branch  of  this  home  industry  for 
the  benefit  of  another,  would  be  unjust.  No  one  of  these  in- 
terests can  rightfully  claim  an  advantage  over  the  others,  or 
to  be  enriched  by  impoverishing  the  others.  In  exercising  a 
sound  discretion  in  levying  discriminating  duties  within  the 
limit  prescribed,  care  should  be  taken  that  it  be  done  in  a 
manner  not  to  benefit  the  wealthy  few,  at  the  expense  of  the 
toiling  millions,  by  taxing  lowest  the  luxuries  of  life  or  arti- 
cles of  superior  quality  and  high  price,  which  can  be  consum- 
ed only  by  the  wealthy  ;  and  highest  the  necessaries  of  life, 
or  articles  of  coarse  quality  and  low  price,  which  the  poor 
and  great  mass  of  our  people  must  consume.  .  .  A  spirit 
of  mutual  concession  and  compromise  in  adjusting  its  details 
should  be  cherished  by  every  part  of  our  wide  spread  coun- 
try, as  the  only  means  of  preserving  harmony  and  a  cheerful 
acquiescence  of  all  in  the  operation  of  our  revenue  laws." 

In  his  annual  message  to  Congress  in  December,  1845,  the 


1845  ]  PRESIDENT  FOLK'S  MESSAGE.  343 

President  recommended  "  suitable  modifications  and  reduc- 
tions of  the  rates  of  duty  imposed  by  our  tariff  laws."  He 
said  that  "  the  discriminations  should  be  within  the  revenue 
standard,  and  be  made  with  the  view  to  raise  money  for  the 
support  of  the  Government ;"  and  then  proceeds  to  define  the 
term  revenue  standard — which  is  done  in  a  mariner  perhaps 
never  done  before,  if,  indeed,  the  service  had  ever  been  at- 
tempted. The  following  is  his  language  : 

"  It  becomes  important  to  understand  distinctly  what  is 
meant  by  a  revenue  standard,  the  maximum  of  which  should 
not  be  exceeded  in  the  rates  of  duties  imposed.  It  is  conced- 
ed, and  experience  proves,  that  duties  may  be  laid  so  high 
as  to  diminish  or  prohibit  altogether  the  importation  of  any 
given  article,  and  thereby  lessen  or  destroy  the  revenue 
which,  at  lower  rates,  would  be  derived  from  its  importation. 
Such  duties  exceed  the  revenue  rates,  and  are  not  imposed 
to  raise  money  for  the  support  of  Government.  If  Congress 
levy  a  duty  for  revenue,  of  one  per  cent,  on  a  given  article, 
it  will  produce  a  given  amount  of  money  to  the  Treasury, 
and  will  incidentally  and  necessarily  afford  protection  or  ad- 
vantage, to  the  amount  of  one  per  cent.,  to  the  home  manu- 
facturer of  a  similar  or  like  article  over  the  importer.  If  the 
duty  be  raised  to  ten  per  cent,  it  will  produce  a  greater 
amount  of  money,  and  afford  greater  protection.  If  it  be  still 
raised  to  twenty,  twenty-five,  or  thirty  per  cent.,  and  if,  as  it 
is  raised,  the  revenue  derived  from  it  is  found  to  be  increas- 
ed, the  protection  or  advantage  will  also  be  increased  ;  but 
if  it  be  raised  to  thirty-one  per  cent.,  and  it  is  found  that  the 
revenue  produced  at  that  rate  is  less  than  at  thirty  per  cent., 
it  ceases  to  be  a  revenue  duty.  The  precise  point  in  the  as- 
cending scale  of  d"ties  at  which  it  is  ascertained  from  expe- 
rience that  the  revenue  is  greatest,  is  the  maximum  rate  of 
duty  which  can  be  laid  for  the  bonafide  purpose  of  collecting 
money  for  the  support  of  Government.  To  raise  the  duties 
higher  than  that  point,  and  thereby  diminish  the  amount  col- 
lected, is  to  levy  them  for  protection  merely,  and  not  for  rev- 
enue. As  long,  then,  as  Congress  may  gradually  increase 
the  rate  of  duty  on  a  given  article,  and  the  revenue  is  in- 
creased by  such  increase  of  duty,  they  are  within  the  reve- 
nue standard.  When  they  go  beyond  that  point,  and,  as  they 
increase  the  duties,  the  revenue  is  diminished  or  destroyed, 
the  act  ceases  to  have  for  its  object  the  raising  of  money  to 
support  Government,  but  is  for  protection  merely. 

"  It  does  not  follow  that  Congress  should  levy  the  highest 


344  THE    PROTECTIVE   SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV 

duty  on  all  articles  of  import  which  they  will  bear  within  the 
revenue  standard  ;  for  such  rates  would  probably  produce  a 
much  larger  amount  than  the  economical  administration  of 
the  Government  would  require.  Nor  does  it  follow  that  the 
duties  on  articles  should  be  at  the  same  or  a  horizontal  rate. 
Some  articles  will  bear  a  much  higher  revenue  duty  than 
others.  Below  the  maximum  of  the  revenue  standard,  Con- 
gress may  and  ought  to  discriminate  in  the  rates  imposed, 
taking  cure  so  to  adjust  them  on  different  articles  as  to  pro- 
duce in  the  aggregate  the  amount  which,  when  added  to  the 
proceeds  of  sales  of  public  lands,  may  be  needed  to  pay  the 
economical  expenses  of  the  Government." 

Many  of  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1842,  the  President 
said,  were  in  violation  of  these  principles  ;  the  duties  on 
some  articles  being  prohibitory,  and  on  others  so  high  as  to 
diminish  importations,  and  to  produce  a  less  amount  of  reve- 
nue than  would  be  derived  from  lower  duties.  They  operated, 
he  said,  as  protection  merely,  to  one  branch  of  industry,  by 
taxing  other  branches. 

The  minimums  and  specific  duties,  too,  he  considered  ob- 
jectionable. The  act  was  so  framed  as  to  throw  the  greater 
share  of  the  burden  on  the  poorer  classes. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Robert  J.  Walker,  in  his 
report,  discusses  the  tariff  question  very  elaborately  ;  and  in 
suggesting  improvements  in  the  revenue  laws,  adopted  the 
following  principles  : 

1st.  That  no  more  money  should  be  collected  than  is  ne- 
cessary for  the  wants  of  the  Government,  economically  ad- 
ministered. 

2d.  That  no  duty  be  imposed  on  any  article  above  the  low- 
est rate  which  will  yield  the  largest  amount  of  revenue. 

3d.  That,  below  such  rate,  discrimination  may  be  made, 
descending  in  the  scale  of  duties  ;  or  for  imperative  reasons, 
the  article  may  be  placed  in  the  list  of  those  free  from  all 
duty. 

4th.  That  the  maximum  revenue  duty  should  be  imposed 
on  luxuries. 

5th.  That  all  minimums,  and  all  specific  duties,  should  be 
abolished,  and  ad  valorem  duties  substituted  in  their  place  ; 
care  being  taken  to  guard  against  fraudulent  invoices  and 
undervaluation,  and  to  assess  the  duty  upon  the  actual 
market  value. 

6th.  That  the  duties  should  be  so  imposed  as  to  operate  as 
equally  as  possible  throughout  the  Union,  discriminating 
neither  for  nor  against  any  class  or  section. 


I846.J  SECRETARY  WALKER'S  REPORT.  845 

Perhaps  few  reports  on  this  subject  have  been  more  se- 
verely criticised  than  this  report  of  Secretary  Walker.  In 
the  National  Intelligencer  appeared  a  review  of  this  Docu- 
ment by  "  A  member  of  the  27th  Congress,"  from  which  we 
copy,  in  a  condensed  form,  a  few  paragraphs  : 

He  [the  Secretary]  thus  states  the  object  of  the  protec- 
tive system  : 

"  A  protective  tariff  is  a  question  regarding  the  enhance- 
ment of  the  profits  of  capital  ;  that  is  its  object  ;  and  not  to 
augment  the  wages  of  labor,  which  would  reduce  those  profits. 
It  is  a  question  of  per  centage,  and  is  to  decide  whether 
money  vested  in  our  manufactures  should,  by  special  legisla- 
tion, yield  a  profit  of  ten,  twenty,  or  thirty  per  cent.,  or 
whether  it  shall  remain  satisfied  with  a  dividend  equal  to 
that  accruing  from  the  same  capital  when  invested  in  agri- 
culture, commerce,  or  navigation." 

It  is  difficult  to  say  whether  the  above  paragraph  betrays 
a  greater  degree  of  ignorance  of  the  objects  for  which  the 
protective  principle  was  adopted  and  ingrafted  into  our  reve- 
nue system,  or  of  the  most  common  and  universally  admitted 
principles  of  political  economy.  The  protective  system  was 
not  introduced  or  advocated  by  the  possessors  of  capital,  nor 
for  their  benefit.  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  they  were, 
with  few  if  any  exceptions,  opposed  to  it.  It  was  the  patri- 
otic democracy  of  the  country  which  advocated  and  intro- 
duced the  system.  What  was  the  argument  ?  The  country 
is  wholly  agricultural  and  commercial.  In  the  existing 
policy  of  the  world,  we  produce  more  than  we  can  sell,  ex- 
cept at  prices  miserably  low.  We  have  to  buy  our  clothing 
and  other  foreign  productions  from  abroad,  at  their  own 
prices  ;  in  payment  of  which,  we  are  constantly  being  drained 
of  our  specie,  to  the  derangement  of  our  circulating  medium, 
and  paralysis  of  all  business.  The  proposition  is  to  hold  out 
inducements  to  the  merchants  to  withdraw  a  portion  of  their 
capital  from  foreign  trade,  and  employ  it  in  manufactures 
and  the  domestic  trade  of  their  distribution.  We  shall  thus 
withdraw  a  portion  of  our  labor  from  agriculture,  and  con- 
vert producers  into  consumers.  We  shall  thus  furnish  our* 
selves  with  at  least  a  portion  of  the  manufactures  which  we 
require,  by  the  labor  of  our  own  citizens,  and  pay  for  them 
with  those  productions  which  we  now  find  no  market  for,  or  a 
poor  one.  We  apprehend  the  question  was  never  stated  in 
these  discussions,  whether  there  was  not  danger  that  those 
who  should  be  drawn  into  the  new  occupations  would  make 


346  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  Chap.  XV 

too  much  money  ;  because  in  those  days  it  was  considered  a 
settled  principle,  confirmed  by  all  experience,  that  any  bus- 
iness yielding  profits  above  the  average  rates,  is  sure  to  at- 
tract capital  and  labor  into  it,  until  the  profits  fall  to  the 
general  level,  or  more  usually  for  a  time  below  it. 

At  any  rate,  the  protective  policy  was  adopted,  and  men 
of  business  employed  their  earnings  in  the  new  occupations 
to  which  they  were  invited  by  the  policy  and  laws  of  the 
country,  doubtingly  and  hesitatingly  at  first,  but  afterwards 
more  freely  and  confidently.  The  most  successful  branch, 
and  the  one  which  has  absorbed  the  greatest  amount  of  capi- 
tal, is  the  manufacture  of  cotton.  The  possession  of  the  raw 
material  on  the  spot,  and  the  peculiar  adaptation  of  machin- 
ery to  produce  great  results  in  this  manufacture,  soon  made 
it  evident  that  the  cotton  manufacture  was  rapidly  to  become 
one  of  the  leading  interests  of  the  country.  Capital  went 
into  it  freely  and  confidently.  Its  rapid  extension  has  no 
parallel,  and  is  only  equalled  in  the  corresponding  reduction 
in  the  price  of  its  fabrics.  Its  success  furnishes  the  only 
ground  of  its  denunciation.  The  manufacturers  are  growing 
too  rich.  That  is  the  burthen  of  the  report.  Special  legisla- 
tion in  their  favor.  "  Another  form  of  privileged  orders."  We 
regret  to  see  a  high  officer  of  the  Government  descending  to 
use  the  stereotyped  slang  of  the  party  newspapers. 

In  carrying  out  his  views,  we  find  some  very  extraordinary 
assertions.  For  instance  :  "  Experience  proves  that,  as  a 
general  rule,  a  duty  of  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  will  yield  the 
largest  revenue.7'  We  should  be  glad  to  known  what  expe- 
rience. Is  it  that  of  Great  Britain,  whose  necessities  re- 
quire her  to  push  her  duties  up*  or  down  to  what  she  finds  by 
experience  to  be  the  highest  revenue  standard  ?  Her  duty 
on  tea  is  2s.  Id.,  or  50  cents  the  pound,  on  all  teas  without 
discrimination,  being  at  least  200  per  cent,  on  the  cost,  pro- 
ducing for  the  year  ending  January,  1842,  the  comfortable 
sum  of  £3,978,000  (upwards  of  $19,000,000)  revenue.  Her 
lowest  duty  on  sugar  that  year  was  24s.  the  cwt,  or  5  j  cents 
the  pound,  producing  a  revenue  of  £5,120,000,  about  $24,- 
500,000.  It  is  true  this  duty  on  sugar  has  since  been  re- 
duced, but  for  relief,  not  for  revenue.  Her  duties  on  wines 
are  5s.  6d.  ($1.22)  the  gallon  ;  rum,  9s.  4d.  ($2.08)  the  gal- 
lon ;  brandy,  22s.  6d.  ($5)  the  gallon  ;  tobacco,  3s.  (66| 
cents)  the  pound  ;  producing  together  about  $40,000,000,  at 
rates  varying  from  300  to  900  percent,  on  the  value. 

So  much  for  the  experience  of  England.   What  is  our  own  ? 


1846.J  REVIEW  OF  WALKER'S  REPORT.  347 

Our  highest  tariff  was  that  of  1828.  Our  greatest  revenue 
was  under  it  for  the  year  1831,  being-  $30,312,851  net,  at 
rates  of  duty  averaging' 41  per  cent,  on  imports  subject  to 
duty.  [Sec.  Doc.  No.  3.  28th  Congress.]  Our  lowest  tariff 
was  in  operation  in  1842,  being  less  than  24  per  cent.,  on  the 
dutiable  imports,  and  produced  a  net  revenue  for  the  year,  of 
$12,780,1*13.  So  much  for  our  own  experience.  We  think  it 
would  puzzle  Mr.  Secretary  Walker  to  furnish  the  evidence 
of  what  he  pronounces  to  be  so  clearly  proved. 

Another  assertion  of  Mr.  Walker  is,  that  the  wages  of 
labor  have  not  augmented  since  the  tariff  of  1842,  but  that 
they  have  in  some  cases  diminished.  Now  we  find  on  inquiry 
of  the  different  agencies  at  Lowell,  that  the  average  earnings 
of  the  operatives  have  increased  full  one-third  since  the  dis- 
astrous year  1842,  or  from  $1  50  to  full  $2  00  per  week  for 
females,  exclusive  of  board.  But  even  this  does  not  present 
a  fair  view  of  the  full  effect  of  the  tariff  of  1842  upon  labor. 
At  that  time  the  proprietors  were  receiving  no  dividends,  and 
waiting  for  the  action  of  Congress  before  deciding  to  stop  the 
mills.  Had  Congress  adjourned  without  enacting  the  tariff, 
more  than  one-half  of  the  mills  in  New  England  would  have 
stopped  at  once.  The  reason  assigned  by  the  Secretary  for 
his  supposed  fact,  is  entitled  to  some  notice.  He  says  :  "  As 
the  capital  invested  in  manufactures  is  augmented  by  the  pro- 
tective tariff,  there  is  a  corresponding  increase  of  power,  until 
the  control  of  such  capital  over  the  wages  of  labor  becomes 
irresistible."  That  is  to  say,  the  greater  the  inducement  to 
build  mills,  and  the  greater  the  amount  invested  in  works 
which  are  wholly  unproductive  without  hands  to  work  them, 
the  greater  is  the  power  of  the  mill  owners  to  drive  hands  into 
them  ;  in  other  words,  the  power  of  labor  to  get  high  wages 
diminishes  in  proportion  as  the  demand  for  it  is  increased  I 
If  a  greater  solecism  was  ever  put  upon  paper,  we  should 
be  glad  to  see  it. 

The  whole  force  of  the  report  is  leveled  against  the  tariff 
of  1842,  as  if  that  were  some  new  abomination.  It  is  pro- 
nounced "  unequal,  unjust,  and  oppressive."  Now  the  fact  is, 
the  tariff  of  1842  was  modeled  upon  the  tariff  of  1832.  That 
was  adopted  as  the  ground  work  ;  the  principle  was  the 
same,  as  a  comparison  will  show  in  the  following  table.  [A 
table  is  here  given  of  the  duties  upon  the  principal  articles 
in  the  two  tariffs.]  It  will  be  seen  that  there  was  a  general 
reduction  on  the  highest  rates  of  duty.  .  .  .  The  tariff  of 
1832  was  prepared  with  great  care,  on  the  principle  of  rais- 


348  T11E  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV 

ing  the  necessary  revenue,  so  disposed  as  to  afford  protection 
to  our  own  industry  in  all  its  branches.  Many  of  the  protec- 
tionists, however,  were  not  satisfied  with  the  duty  on  woolen 
manufactures,  high  as  it  was,  as  not  corresponding-  with  the 
high  duty  on  wool.  The  bill  passed  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives by  a  vote  of  132  to  65.  It  is  somewhat  curious  to 
find  amongst  the  yeas  the  names  of  James  K.  Polk  and  Cave 
Johnson  [his  colleague.]  Of  the  nays  not  more  than  one-half- 
voted  against  the  bill  as  not  high  enough  on  woolens,  leaving 
not  more  than  thirty  who  voted  against  the  bill  on  principle, 
consisting  of  Mr.  M'Duffie  and  his  converts  to  the  forty  bale 
theory.  In  the  Senate,  the  same  bill,  fortified  in  the  article 
of  woolens  by  an  addition  of  7  per  cent.,  passed  by  a  vote  of 
32  to  16  ;  Mr.  Dallas  being  amongst  those  voting  in  the 
affirmative.  Such  was  the  position  of  the  Democracy  on  the 
principle  of  discrimination  in  favor  of  protection  in  1832. 
None  of  its  deformities  were  then  discovered.  But  South 
Carolina  did  not  like  this  bill.  She  adopted  a  theory  that  it 
imposed  a  tax  of  40  per  cent,  on  her  exports.  She  threatened 
nullification  and  rebellion.  General  Jackson,  at  the  next 
session  of  the  same  Congress,  proposed  a  reduction  of  the 
tariff  in  order  to  appease  this  froward  State.  He  admitted 
that  "  it  would  seem  a  violation  of  public  faith  suddenly  to 
abandon  the  large  interests  which  had  grown  up  under  the 
implied  pledge  of  our  legislation,"  and  added,  "  that  nothing 
could  justify  it  but  the  public  safet}-,  which  is  the  supreme 
law." 

Mr.  Walker  expresses  particular  dislike  to  specific  duties, 
including  the  cotton  minimums,  which  are,  in  fact,  specific 
duties.  In  this  he  goes  against  the  experience  of  the  whole 
world.  He  will  not  find  a  mercantile  man  in  the  whole  coun- 
try to  agree  with  him.  The  difficulty  of  guarding  against 
fraudulent  invoices  has  increased  with  the  increase  of  our 
trade,  and  its  tendency  is  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  unscrupulous 
foreigners,  with  whom  the  custom  of  double  invoices  is  noto- 
rious. The  carrying  out  of  Mr.  Walker's  views  in  this  par- 
ticular would  not  only  put  our  whole  system  of  revenue  in 
peril,  but  introduce  the  widest  system  of  fraud  and  perjury 
which  the  world  has  ever  seen.  Many  of  the  continental 
tariffs,  and  the  famous  Zoll  Verein  in  particular,  are  wholly 
specific  ;  manufactures  of  cotton,  wool,  and  silk,  being  rated 
by  weight.  The  British  tariff  admits  ad  valorem  duties  in  the 
ft-wrst  possible  cases,  and  then  subject  to  a  home  valuation. 
Mr.  Walker's  objection  that  specific  duties,  and  especially  the 


1646.]  SPEECH  OF  MR.  STEWART.  349 

cotton  minimum,  throw  unequal  burdens  upon  the  laboring 
classes  and  poor,  compared  to  the  rich,  has  hardly  the  shadow 
of  truth  to  support  it  ;  so  far  as  respects  the  cotton  manufac- 
tures, not  even  the  shadow.  It  is  a  fact  which  must  be  ad- 
mitted by  all  who  look  into  the  matter,  that  the  coarser  man- 
ufactures of  cotton,  all  which  possess  substance  and  are  most 
profitable  in  use  by  the  laboring  classes,  are  furnished  by  the 
American  manufacturers  on  better  terms  than  can  be  had  in 
any  other  part  of  the  world.  In  this  they  challenge  inquiry. 
The  constantly  increasing  demand  for  this  description  of 
goods  in  markets  in  which  they  meet  the  British  in  full  com- 
petition, would  seem  to  be  sufficient  evidence  of  this  fact  ; 
unless,  indeed,  one  would  adopt  the  discovery  of  the  sagacious 
Bundelcund,  that  tJie  manufacturers  sell  their  goods  abroad  at  mie- 
half  the  price  ivhich  they  obtain  at  home. 

The  Secretary  quotes  from  McKay's  report  to  show  the 
high  duties  payable  on  certain  manufactures  of  cotton,  add- 
ing :  "  This  difference  is  founded  on  actual  importation,  and 
shows  an  average  discrimination  against  the  poor,  on  cotton 
imports,  of  82  per  cent,  beyond  what  the  tax  would  be  if  as- 
sessed upon  the  actual  value."  Now,  with  all  due  respect  to 
Mr.  Walker,  we  must  say,  there  is  no  such  thing.  He  is  utterly 
mistaken.  No  such  importations  have  been  made.  No' such 
horrid  exaction  has  been  practiced  upon  the  poor.  [The  re- 
viewer then  refers  to  the  authority  upon  which  the  Secretary 
bases  his  statement,  viz.,  British  Prices  Current  ;  and  says  :] 
Here  we  find  precisely  the  same  rates  of  duty,  being  those 
which  would  le  charged  on  certain  goods,  if  imported.  Amongst 
them  we  find  "stouts  or  domestics,"  (in  imitation  of  ours,) 
estimated  to  pay  upwards  of  100  per  cent,  duty,  whilst  they 
were  actually  selling  lower  in  Boston  or  New  York  than  the 
prices  quoted  in  this  very  Manchester  Price  Current. 

In  the  course  of  the  debate  on  the  President's  Message, 
certain  portions  of  the  document  and  the  Secretary's  report 
were  thus  noticed  by  Mr.  Stewart,  of  Pennsylvania  : 

The  tariff  of  1842  had  been  pronounced  by  the  Secretary 
unconstitutional,  because  it  exceeded  the  revenue  limit  ;  as 
the  raising  of  revenue  was  the  only  proper  object  of  such  a 
bill.  "  Whenever  it  departed  from  that  object,  in  whole  or 
in  part,  either  by  total  or  partial  prohibition,  it  violated  the 
purpose  of  the  granted  power."  Mr.  S.  referred  to  the  Mes- 
sages of  Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison,  and  Monroe,  all  of 
whom  had  expressly  recommended  the  protection  of  domestic 
manufactures;  and  as  further  confirming  the  constitutional 


850  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV. 

power  of  protection,  he  quoted  from  the  second  annual  Mes- 
sage of  Gen.  Jackson,  the  following  : 

"  The  power  to  impose  duties  upon  imports  originally  be- 
longed to  the  several  States.  The  right  to  adjust  these 
duties,  with  a  view  to  the  encouragement  of  domestic  indus- 
try, is  so  completely  identical  with  that  power,  that  it  is 
difficult  to  suppose  the  existence  of  the  one  without  the  other. 
The  States  have  delegated  their  whole  authority  over  imposts 
to  the  General  Government,  without  limitation  or  restriction, 
saving  the  very  inconsiderable  reservation  relating  to  the  in- 
spection laws.  This  authority  having  thus  entirely  passed 
from  the  States,  the  right  to  exercise  it  for  the  purpose  of 
protection  does  not  exist  in  them  ;  and,  consequently,  if  it 
be  not  possessed  by  the  General  Government,  it  must  be  ex- 
tinct. Our  political  system  would  thus  present  the  anomaly 
of  a  people  stripped  of  the  right  to  foster  their  own  industry, 
and  to  counteract  the  most  selfish  and  destructive  policy 
which  might  be  adopted  by  foreign  nations.  This  surely  can 
not  be  the  case.  This  indispensable  power,  thus  surrendered 
by  the  States,  must  be  within  the  scope  of  authority  on  the 
subject  expressly  delegated  to  Congress.  In  this  conclusion 
I  am  confirmed,  as  well  by  the  opinions  of  Presidents  Wash- 
ington, Jefferson,  Madison,  and  Monroe,  who  have  repeatedly 
recommended  the  exercise  of  this  right  under  the  Constitu- 
tion, as  by  the  uniform  practice  of  Congress,  the  continued 
acquiescence  of  the  States,  and  the  general  understanding  of 
the  people." 

Yet  now  Congress  was  to  learn,  for  the  first  time,  by  ex- 
ecutive instruction,  that  they  possess  no  constitutional  power 
to  protect  our  own  home  industry — no  power  to  countervail 
the  injurious  regulations  of  other  countries. 

Mr.  Johnson,  of  Tennessee,  asked  :  When  the  Govern- 
ment protects  manufactures,  who  pays  the  dutios  ? 

Mr.  Stewart  said,  the  gentleman  and  his  friends  held  the 
doctrine  that  the  consumer  always  paid  the  duty  ;  and  the 
Secretary  had  told  the  nation  that  the  poor  man  was  taxed 
82  per  cent,  on  cotton  goods  over  the  rich  man  ;  that  the 
poor  man  was  taxed  150  per  cent,  on  his  cotton  shirt,  be- 
cause there  was  a  specific  duty  on  imported  cotton  goods  of 
9  cents  a  yard.  This  specific  duty  of  9  cents  was  just  150 
per  cent,  on  6  cents,  the  price  paid  by  the  poor  man  for  his 
cotton.  So  the  practical  effect  of  this  horrid  tax  was  that 
this  poor  man  got  a  good  shirt  at  sixpence  a  yard.  Those 
obnoxious  iiiinimiiins  had  been  introduced  by  John  C  Cal- 


1846.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  351 

houn  and  William  Lowndes,  of  South  Carolina,  since  which, 
the  price  had  fallen  from  36  to  6  cents  a  yard.  On  that  36 
cents,  the  tariff  laid  a  duty  of  9  cents,  which  was  then  but 
25  per  cent,  ad  valorem  ;  now  it  was  150  per  cent.  ;  and  why  ? 
"Because  the  price  had  been  reduced  from  36  to  6  .cents  a 
yard  !  Let  the  manufacturer  run  up  the  price  to  3«>  cents 
again,  and  the  duty  of  9  cents  would  fall  to  25  per  cent.  ; 
and  according-  to  the  Secretary,  the  oppression  would  all  be 
over — these  friends  of  the  poor  man  would  be  satisfied. 

Mr.  Johnson  asked,  if  the  duty  brought  down  the  prices  of 
articles,  why  did  the  manufacturer  want  it  ?  and  what 
brought  down  the  price  of  other  goods  in  proportion  ? 

Mr.  Stewart  said  that  other  goods  not  manufactured  here — 
silks,  velvets,  &c.,  had  not  declined  in  the  same  ratio  ;  nor 
had  wages  or  agricultural  produce  ;  because  the  protective 
tariff  had  increased  the  supply  of  domestic  goods  by  increas- 
ing competition,  and  had  sustained  wages  and  agricultural 
produce  by  creating  an  increased  demand  for  both.  If  the 
gentleman  could  comprehend  that  demand  and  supply  regu- 
late price,  it  would  be  all  plain  to  him. 

Respecting  ad  valorem  duties,  Mr.  S.  said  :  The  duty  is 
fixed,  and  can  not  var}-.  They  are  always  the  same.  None 
were  imposed  by  the  tariff  of  L842  above  50  per  cent.  How, 
then,  does  the  President,  in  his  message,  get  duties  of  200  per 
cent.?  Only  by  converting  the  specific  duties  into  ad  valorem. 
If  the  duty  is  200  per  cent.,  the  price  must  be  one-half  only 
of  the  duty.  Thus  we  are  told  that  glass  pays  the  enormous 
duty  of  200  per  cent,  ;  and  why  ?  Because  the  duty  is  $4 
per  box,  and  the  price  $2  per  box.  But  if  the  glass  went 
down  to  $1  per  box,  the  duty  would  be  400  per  cent.  The  tariff 
of  1816  imposed  a  duty  of  4  cents  a  pound  on  nails.  The 
price  was  16  cents  a  pound,  and  the  duty  was  equal  to  25 
per  cent,  on  the  price  ;  but  the  same  duty,  we  are  now  told, 
is  100  per  cent.  ;  and  how  so  ?  Because  the  price  has  fallen 
from  16  to  4  cents  a  pound.  Thiy  is  the  principle  upon 
which  the  Secretary  based  his  statement,  that  the  people 
paid  in  all  a  tax  of  84  millions,  of  which  but  27  millions  went 
to  the  Government,  and  54  millions  to  the  manufacturers  1 

Mr.  S.  also  commented  on  the  declaration  of  the  Secretary, 
that,  "  Experience  proves  that,  as  a  general  rule,  a  duty  of 
20  per  cent,  will  yield  the  largest  revenue  ;"  and  disproved 
this  assertion  by  the  fact,  that,  under  the  20  per  cent,  duty 
in  1841-1842,  the  revenue  had  fallen  to  about  $13,000,000, 
and  this  year  it  was  $27,000,000.  And  what  was  the  effect 


352  TUB  PROTECTIVE    SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV 

of  the  20  per  cent,  horizontal  duty  ?  Under  its  operation, 
the  country  was  prostrated  ;  the  Government  itself  was  bank- 
rupt ;  and  the  people  were  little  better.  Yet  this  man  could 
say,  in  the  face  of  these  well  known  facts,  and  of  the  Ameri-^ 
can  people,  any  of  whom  knew  better,  that  an  average  of  20 
per  cent,  yielded  the  highest  amount  of  revenue.  The  Secre- 
tary has  gone  even  further  than  this.  In  his  famous  Circular 
he  lias  assumed  that  12 \  per  cent,  horizontal  was  the  true  reve- 
nue standard.  Some  Western  scribbler  asked  him  through 
the  press,  how  much  revenue  12|  per  cent  would  give  him 
on  100  millions  of  imports  ;  that  being  about  the  average 
amount.  The  answer  must  be,  12|  millions.  Then  deduct 
3  millions,  the  expense  of  collection,  and  but  9J  millions  of 
net  revenue  would  be  left  to  pay  27  millions  of  expenditures. 
To  make  up  the  revenue,  you  must  add  more  than  100  mil- 
lions to  your  imports,  while  your  whole  specie  has  never  been 
estimated  at  more  than  85  millions.  Then  all  your  specie 
goes  for  your  first  year  ;  and  where  will  you  get  money  for 
the  next  year  ? 

The  truth  is,  said  Mr.  S.,  that  the  revenue  results  from  and 
follows  the  tariff.  When  the  tariff  is  low,  the  revenue  is 
low  ;  when  the  tariff  is  high,  the  revenue  is  high.  This  is 
the  uniform  experience  of  the  country.  It  must  be  so  ;  and 
why  ?  Because  the  result  of  protection  is  to  make  the  peo- 
ple rich  ;  and  taking  off  protection  is  to  make  them  poor. 
When  men  are  impoverished,  can  they  purchase  freely? 
Certainly  not.  When  prosperous,  their  wives  and  daughters 
can  purchase  costly  clothing  and  rich  furniture  ;  and  then 
many  goods  are  always  imported  But  when  the  country  is 
impoverished  by  the  ruinous  policy  here  recommended,  men 
will  wear  their  old  coats  ;  their  wives  and  daughters  stay  at 
home  and  mend  them  ;  merchants  can  not  get  money  to  im- 
port goods  ;  and  the  treasury  becomes  bankrupt. 

The  report  says  that  protective  duties  are  levied  exclusively 
for  the  benefit  of  the  rich  monopolists  at  the  expense  of  the 
farmers  and  laborers.  Now  I  contend  that  just  the  reverse 
of  this  is  the  truth.  The  practical  effect  of  protection  is  to 
increase  the  number  of  manufacturing  establishments,  and 
thus  destroy  monopoly  by  promoting  competition  ;  and  that  by 
withdrawing  labor  from  agriculture  to  manufactures,  you  not 
only  diminish  the  supply,  but  at  the  same  time  increase  the  de- 
viand  for  agricultural  produce,  and  of  course  increase  its 
price  ;  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  by  increasing  manufactur- 
ing establishments,  you  increase  the  supply  of  manufactured 


1846.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  353 

goods-,  and  of  course  reduce  their  price  ;  so  that  the  farmer  is 
enabled  to  sell  for  more,  arid  buy  for  less.  If  demand  and  sup- 
ply regulate  price,  this  conclusion  is  inevitable.  Yet  the  re- 
port says  "  the  tariff  is  a  double  benefit  to  the  manufacturer, 
and  a  double  loss  to  the  farmer." 

The  Secretary  tells  us,  that  "  England  has  repealed  her 
duty  on  cotton,  and  reduced  it  on  breadstuffs."  True  ; 
but  is  not  this  the  work  of  the  protective  policy?  The 
American  manufacturer  is  abroad  throughout  Europe  with 
his  goods,  underselling  England  even  in  her  own  markets. 
Hence  she  is  obliged  to  take  every  burden  off  her  manufac- 
turers to  enable  them  to  maintain  the  competition.  Hence 
she  repeals  the  duty  on  cotton,  and  reduces  it  on  provisions, 
not  to  favor,  but  to  beat  us  ;  not  to  benefit  us,  but  to  save 
themselves.  The  Secretary  boasts  of  British  liberality,  with 
the  notorious  fact  before  his  eyes,  that,  except  on  cotton,  the 
average  duties  levied  at  this  moment  in  Great  Britain  on  all 
imports  from  this  country,  exceed  300  per  cent.  ;  while  our 
duties  on  imports  from  that  country  do  not  average  33.  This 
is  British  liberality,  so  extolled  by  the  American  Secretary. 

England,  we  are  told,  will  follow  our  example,  if  we  adopt 
"  free  trade."  Will  she  ?  Hear  what  she  says  on  this  sub- 
ject through  her  ministry.  The  Duke  of  Wellington  recently 
stated  in  the  House  of  Peers,  that  "  when  free  trade  waa 
talked  of  as  existing  in  England,  it  was  an  absurdity.  There 
was  no  such  thing1,  and  there  could  be  no  such  thing  as  free  trade, 
in  that  country'.  We  proceed,"  says  he,  "  on  the  system  of  pro- 
tecting our  own  manufactures  and  our  own  produce — the  pro- 
duce of  our  labor  and  our  soil ;  of  protecting  them  for  expor- 
tation, and  protecting  them  for  home  consumption  ;  and  on 
that  universal  system  of  protection,  it  was  absurd  to  talk  of 
free  trade." 

Upon  the  President's  definition  of  a  revenue  standard  of 
duty,  and  his  rule  for  laying  duties,  [see  extract  from  the 
message,  page  343,]  Mr.  S.  remarked  :  The  moment  an 
American  manufacturer  had  succeeded  in  supplying  our  own 
market,  and  begun  to  thrive,  that  would  prove  that  the  duty 
was  too  high  for  revenue  ;  that  it  was  no  longer  a  revenue 
duty,  but  a  protective  duty,  and  must  forthwith  be  reduced. 
As  the  American  furnished  more  goods  to  the  country,  kss  for- 
eign goods  would  be  imported,  revenue  would  be  diminished, 
and  the  duty  must  come  down.  Under  such  a  rule,  what  man 
in  his  senses  would  invest  a  dollar  in  manufactures  ?  When, 
by  industry  and  enterprise,  he  was  getting  the  better  of  his 


354  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV. 

foreign  competitor,  the  duty  must  go  down.  If  a  shoemaker 
or  a  hatter  had  got  possession  of  the  market,  the  eye  of  this 
free  trade  system  was  fastened  on  him  like  a  vulture.  The 
Secretary  found  he  was  doing  well,  and  the  duty  must  b£ 
reduced  to  let  in  the  foreigner.  This  was  their  American 
system.  Mr.  S.  insisted  that  it  was  a  British  system — just 
such  a  one  as  Sir  Robert  Peel  would  have  recommended. 

On  the  14th  of  April,  1846,  Mr.  M'Kay,  from  the  Committee 
of  Ways  and  Means,  reported  to  the  House,  in  conformity 
with  the  principles  of  the  Secretary's  report,  a  bill  to  reduce 
the  duties  on  imports.  The  bill  was  a  long  time  under  de- 
bate, many  of  the  Democratic  members  being  among  its 
most  zealous  opponents,  especially  from  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania. 

Mr.  McClean,  of  Pa.,  Democrat,  said  :  It  is  sufficient  for 
me  to  know  that  the  tariff  of  1842  works  well.  The  gentle- 
man who  preceded  me  [Mr.  S.  Jones,  of  Ga.]  says  that  we 
should  judge  the  tree  by  its  fruits.  I  am  willing  to  take  him 
at  his  word.  I  can  only  speak  with  reference  to  that  portion 
of  the  country  with  which  I  am  more  immediately  acquainted. 
And  what  do  I  see  there  ?  Everywhere  around  me,  in  what- 
soever direction  I  may  travel,  I  see  the  evidences  of  a  pros- 
perous, happy,  and  cheerful  people.  Go  where  I  will,  I  hear 
the  hum  of  busy  industry.  1  see  the  evidences  of  improve- 
ment— of  prosperity  almost  unexampled  in  the  history  of  our 
country.  The  farmer  has  a  good  price  for  his  produce.  The 
wages  of  labor  are  fair.  The  currency  is  as  good  as  ever  it 
was  ;  it  has  never  in  my  recollection  been  better.  The  sys- 
tem works  well.  The  tree  bears  good  fruit  ;  and  by  its  fruit 
it  should  be  judged.  And  will  you  rashly  make  a  change  in 
the  face  of  the  prosperity  of  the  country  ?  Will  you  pull 
down  a  system  which  is  working  so  well  ?  I  trust  not. 

We  are  called  upon,  as  a  party,  to  repeal  the  tariff.  The 
party  cry  is  raised.  The  Union  [newspaper]  is  calling  on 
the  Democratic  party  here  to  come  up  to  the  work.  We  have 
had  lectures  upon  the  subject,  time  and  again.  [He  here  read 
extracts  from  the  Union,  and  then  proceeded  :]  As  an  Ameri- 
can, I  dislike  to  see  the  name  of  Washington  in  such  an  as- 
sociation. In  our  region  of  country  we  are  not  accustomed 
to  it.  I  will  not  ask  where  the  editor  got  his  commission.  I 
might  be  charged  with  quoting  from  the  other  end  of  the 
capital.  But,  I  ask,  who  mounted  this  editor  with  lash  in 
hand,  and  free  trade  spurs  on  his  heels,  to  goad  our  flanks, 
and  drive  us  up  to  the  work  of  repeal  ?  I  believe  that  the 


1846.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  355 

newspaper  press  in  this  country  should  follow,  not  lead,  the 
action  of  a  free  and  independent  people. 

Air.  Mcllvaine,  of  Pa.,  said,  experience  had  shown  that  the 
prosperity  of  the  country  had  ever  been  the  greatest  when 
the  protection  afforded  by  the  tariff  was  the  highest  ;  and 
that  it  was  reduced  to  the  lowest  point  of  depression  when 
the  tariff  reached  the  lowest  rate  of  ad  valorem  duties.  Who 
could  forget  the  scenes  of  1840,  1841,  and  1842,  when  the  cry 
for  employment  was  heard  throughout  the  country,  when  all 
business  was  at  a  stand,  and  all  classes  of  the  community 
felt  a  general  paralysis  ?  The  effect  of  the  tariff  of  1842  re- 
stored universal  prosperity,  as  if  by  a  stroke  of  the  magician's 
.-wand.  That  prosperity  still  continued.  Why,  then,  repeal 
the  law  which  had  wrought  such  happy  effects  ? 

This  bill,  he  said,  discriminated  for  revenue  against  pro- 
tection. The  Secretary  said  :  "  No  duty  should  be  imposed 
upon  any  article  above  the  lowest  rate  which  will  yield  the 
largest  amount  of  revenue."  "A  partial  and  a  total  prohibi- 
tion are  alike  in  violation  of  the  taxing  power."  What  was 
protection  ?  The  securing  to  the  producer  a  market  for  his 
produce.  Unless  the  duty  laid  should  restrict  importation, 
it  afforded  no  protection.  A  market  was  what  our  people  de- 
manded. 

This  tariff  of  1842  spoke  for  itself.  Its  effects  everywhere 
bore  witness  for  it.  Business  of  all  kinds  was  now  prosper- 
ous and  healthy  ;  there  was  no  reasonable  ground  of  com- 
plaint against  the  present  arrangement  of  duties.  If  it  were 
not  so,  how  would  Tennessee  and  Georgia  be  found  in  favor 
of  the  tariff  ?  Why  would  a  specific  duty  on  sugar  be  asked 
to  protect  Louisiana  ?  If  it  were  not  so,  why  was  the  tariff 
&o  generally  favored  ?  Every  one  who  knew  Pennsylvania 
must  know  that  the  people  of  that  State  never  would  have 
voted  for  James  K.  Polk  as  their  President,  if  they  had  not 
been  imposed  upon  by  men  whom  they  trusted,  and  who  re- 
presented to  them  that  Mr.  Polk  was  the  advocate  of  protec- 
tion. He  was  objected  to  at  first  on  the  ground  that  he  was 
opposed  to  protection  ;  but  that  statement  was  expressly 
contradicted.  Here  Mr.  Mel.  read  the  following,  [which  had 
been  issued  during  the  campaign  of  1844  :] 

"  THE  TARIFF  WHIG  DECEPTION. — Henry  Clay,  by  his  introduction  and 
support  of  the  compromise  act,  arrayed  himself  in  opposition  to  Potts, 
Heister,  Denny,  [members  from  Pennsylvania,]  and  all  the  Representatives 
in  Congress  from  the  manufacturing  States,  and  was  considered  as  having 
ABANDONED  the  protective  policy.  Henry  Clay,  from  the  passage  of  the 


356  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV. 

compromise  act  down  to  the  present  hour,  has  never  uttered  a  word  in 
opposition  to  the  principles  of  that  anti-protective  measure. 

"  James  K.  Polk  has  ever  pursued  a  straight  forward  and  consistent 
course  upon  the  tariff,  as  well  as  upon  other  questions  of  national  policy, 
and  he  is  now  most  decidedly  and  unequivocally  committed  in  favor  of  a 
tariff  which  shall  afford  fair  and  just  protection  to  agriculture,  manufac- 
tures, commerce.  &c. 

"It  was  a  Democratic  Congress  that  passed  the  tariff  act  of  1816,  the 
tariff  act  of  1824,  the  tariff  act  of  1828,  which  Henry  Clay,  to  please  his 
Southern  friends,  denounced.  It  was  a  Democratic  Congress  that  passed 
the  tariff  act  of  1832  ;  it  was  by  Democratic  votes  that  the  tariff  act  of 
1842  was  passed ;  and  it  was  a  Democratic  House  of  Representatives  that 
refused,  in  1844,  to  disturb  the  present  tariff  law. 

"  In  the  face  of  these  FACTS,  the  Whigs  have  continued  to  misrepresent 
the  Democratic  party  and  their  candid/ate  during  the  whole  campaign.'' 

In  this  manner,  said  Mr.  McL,  was  Mr.  Polk  represented 
throughout  Pennsylvania  as  the  tariff  candidate,  and  the 
Democratic  party  as  the  tariff  party,  while  Mr.  Clay  and  his 
friends  were  held  up  as  the  bitterest  enemies  of  protection. 
He  regretted  that  this  matter  of  protection  had  ever  been 
made  a  party  question.  It  was  a  question  as  broad  as  the 
Union,  and  entered  into  and  vitally  affected  all  the  great  in- 
terests of  the  country.  There  was  little  use  in  theorizing  on 
a  practical  subject  like  this.  The  people  understood  the 
facts  ;  and  though  they  might  be  deceived  as  to  men,  they 
could  not  be  as  to  the  tiling.  They  found  by  experience  that 
a  protective  tariff  had  furnished  real  and  profitable  employ- 
ment for  their  labor,  as  well  as  a  profitable  investment  for 
their  capital.  They  had  tried  both  systems,  and  no  theory 
or  theorist  ever  could  convince  them  that  the  policy  of  pro- 
tecting their  industry  was  wrong.  They  knew  and  felt,  that 
whatever  threatened  the  destruction  of  the  tariff,  struck  at 
the  root  of  their  interest  and  well  being. 

Mr.  Collamer,  of  Vt.,  in  commenting  upon  the  President's 
definition  of  a  revenue  standard,  [also  noticed  by  Mr.  Stewart  ; 
see  page  343,]  remarked  ;  that  it  was  the  same  position  tak- 
en by  Mr.  Walker,  and  both  professed  to  deduce  it  from  the 
constitution,  and  to  hold,  that  a  tariff  which  exceeded  what 
they  laid  down  as  the  revenue  standard,  was  in  its  very  na- 
ture unconstitutional.  One  of  the  best  ways  to  test  the  truth 
of  this  position  would  be  to  get  at  it  by  a  clear  and  practical 
case. 

Suppose  all  the  shoes  used  in  America  were  made  in  Eu- 
rope ;  they  were  all  imported.  The  Government  wishing  to 
raise  revenue,  imposes  a  duty  of  10  cents  a  pair  on  all  shoes 
brought  into  the  country.  And  suppose  that  the  revenue  de- 


1846.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  357 

rived  from  this  duty  amounted  to  a  million  of  dollars  ;  that, 
according  to  the  President  and  Secretary,  would  confessedly 
yield  a  revenue  duty.  The  whole  mass  of  shoes  used  in  the 
country  would  be  brought  from  abroad,  and  the  duty  would 
shut  none  out.  Now  suppose  the  duty  raised  to  15  cents  a 
pair,  and  all  the  shoes  to  be  still  imported.  The  duty  would 
raise  a  million  and  a  half  of  dollars  for  revenue,  provided  as 
many  shoes  were  worn  as  in  the  former  case.  Suppose  the 
government  should  then  raise  the  duty  to  20  cents  a  pair. 
Under  this  duty,  some  man  might  say  to  his  neighbor  :  "  We 
are  paying  a  heavy  duty  on  these  imported  shoes  ;  can  not 
we  make  shoes  for  ourselves  ?  If  a  war  should  come,  what 
shall  we  do  ?  We  must  go  barefooted.  Let  us  try."  They 
do  try,  and  begin  to  make  home-made  shoes,  and  they  go  on 
making  shoes  here,  and  make  money  by  it.  They  meet  the 
foreigner  in  our  own  market,  and  undersell  him.  Unwilling 
to  lose  the  market,  he  comes  down  in  his  price.  They  go  a 
little  lower  still  ;  arid  he  reduces  his  price  also.  Suppose 
now  the  American  manufacturers  furnished  one-half  the 
American  market,  what  is  the  effect  on  the  revenue  ?  Tiie 
half  of  the  market  supplied  by  the  foreigner  under  a  duty  of 
20  cents,  produces  the  same  amount  of  revenue  as  when  he 
supplied  the  whole  market  at  10  cents.  Thus,  the  foreigner 
possessing  one-half  of  the  market,  results  in  the  production 
of  less  revenue  than  when  the  duty  was  15  cents.  When 
tho  duty  was  15  cents,  the  Government  got  a  million  and  a 
half  of  dollars  ;  when  it  was  raised  to  20  cents,  the  Govern- 
ment got  but  a  million  of  dollars.  This  exceeded  the  revenue 
standard  ;  and,  according  to  the  Secretary's  rule,  the  tax  must 
be  reduced  again  to  15  cents.  According  to  the  report,  there 
wj,s  a  fixed  revenue  standard  ;  and  as  soon  as  you  diminish 
thB  duty  one  cent,  you  are  out  of  the  revenue  standard. 

The  Secretary  wished  it  distinctly  understood,  that  the  ex- 
act amount  oi  duty  which  produced  the  most  revenue,  con- 
stituted the  revenue  standard.  He  frequently  used  the  phrase, 
"  tne  lowest  duty  which  produced  the  largest  amount  of  reve- 
nue." Now  Mr.  C.  desired  to  know  how  this  differed  from 
the  largest  duty  which  produced  the  largest  amount  of  revenue. 
In  the  example  given,  the  duty  of  10  cents  produced  a  mill- 
ion of  revenue  ;  and  the  duty  of  20  cents  also  produced  a 
million  of  revenue  ;  while  the  duty  of  15  cents  produced  a 
million  and  a  half.  The  lowest  duty  which  produced  the  high- 
est revenue,  and  the  highest  duty  which  produced  the  highest 
revenue,  amounted  to  the  same  thing  exactly  ;  so  that  the 


358  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV 

phrase,  the  lowest  duty,  was  introduced  as  a  mere  catch-word. 
Yet  this  was  the  rule  which  he  laid  down  as  the  fundamental 
principle  to  regulate  the  imposition  of  duties.  But  the  "  low- 
est rate"  was  the  same  as  the  "  highest  rate,"  if  both  brought 
the  same  amount  of  revenue. 

The  tariff  as  it  stood  produced  a  revenue  of  $30,000,000 
gross,  or  about  $27,000,000  when  the  collection  was  paid  for. 
The  Secretary  maintained  that  a  reduction  of  the  duty  would 
produce  an  increase  of  the  revenue.  Supposing  it  would, 
why  destroy  the  present  tariff  ?  Did  it  not  answer  the  pur- 
pose ?  Did  it  not  produce  revenue  ?  What  did  the  Secre- 
tary mean  when  he  said  that  every  duty  exceeding,  in  the 
smallest  degree,  the  revenue  point,  was  a  duty  "  for  protection 
merely  ?"  Did  not' our  present  tariff,  which  was  a  protective 
tariff,  nevertheless  produce  a  good  revenue  ?  Was  it  a  pro- 
tective tariff  merely  ?  The  Secretary  in  his  report  gave  us  no 
data.  There  was  a  good  deal  of  ciphering  but  no  data  on 
which  to  found  it  The  report  put  Mr.  C.  in  mind  of  a  story 
of  a  certain  stage-driver  who  was  very  busily  engaged  in 
chalking  a  number  of  figures  upon  the  hearth,  and  when 
asked  what  he  was  doing,  replied  that  he  was  ciphering  out 
how  many  passengers  he  was  to  have  by  the  next  day's  stage. 
The  Secretary  could  make  a  case  appear  very  well  on  suppo- 
sition ;  but  when  it  came  to  daia  and  solid  matter  of  fact,  his 
theory  was  turned  upside  down. 

Mr.  Owen,  of  Indiana,  Dem.,  after  a  review  of  the  system 
of  commercial  restrictions  of  England — her  partial  legisla- 
tion in  favor  of  classes,  companies,  &c.,  called  in  this  coun- 
try by  the  less  offensive  term,  PROTECTION — said  :  Let  us  ap- 
ply these  lessons  of  the  past.  I  have  spoken  of  those  forms 
of  legal  intermeddling  with  commerce  that  are  antiquated, 
and  have  passed  away  ;  let  us  turn  to  those  that  are  still 
fashionable,  at  this  day,  and  in  our  own  country. 

Tariff  protection  is  the  chief  of  these.  The  object  proposed 
by  a  protective  tariff  is  similar  to  that  which  the  legislator 
of  former  days  had  in  view  when  he  determined  rates  of 
wages  and  fixed  scales  of  prices.  Some  branches  of  indus- 
try, generally  a  manufacture,  is  declared  to  be  in  a  feeble 
and  drooping  condition  ;  its  profits  too  small  ;  its  wages  too 
low  ;  its  prices  insufficient.  Politicians  go  to  work  to  in- 
crease the  profits  and  raise  the  wages  and  the  prices.  This 
they  effect  by  shutting  out  competition.  Formerly  a  close 
corporation  was  the  form  employed  ;  all  but  the  members  of 
4;*e  favored  company  were  forbidden  to  compete.  la  our 


1846. j  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  359 

days,  the  monopoly,  with  some  exceptions,  is  co-extensive 
with  the  kingdom  or  republic  in  which  the  law  is  passed  ; 
and  competition  is  forbidden,  under  penalty  of  fine,  to  foreign- 
ers only.  This  is  a  great  improvement  upon  Queen  Eliza- 
beth's exclusive  patents  and  close  corporations. 

Yet  the  eifect  produced  by  these  national  monopolies  dif- 
fers in  degree  only,  not  in  kind,  from  that  caused  by  those 
exclusive  corporations.  In  both  cases  the  principle  is  iden- 
tical. Artificial  means  are  employed  to  control  and  divert 
from  its  natural  channels  the  current  of  trade.  A  certain 
amount  of  competition  is  shut  out  by  law,  for  the  purpose  of 
raising  the  price  of  a  certain  article  to  its  producers,  and,  of 
course,  to  its  consumers  also.  That  is  the  operation  and  in- 
tended effect  of  all  protective  tariffs. 

To  a  long  vexed  question  I  invite  the  attention  of  our  op- 
ponents in  the  spirit  of  the  text  :  "  Come  now,  and  let  us  rea- 
son together."  In  such  a  spirit  I  ask  the  advocates  of  tariff 
protection  :  How  far  do  your  views  extend  ?  What  are 
your  intentions  ?  This  policy  of  imposing  taxes,  not  with  a 
single  eye  to  revenue,  but  with  the  express  design  to  shut 
out  competition  and  raise  prices^-do  you  regard  it  as  a  per- 
manent policy  ?  You  speak  of  it  as  patriotic  ;  you  still  call 
it  American  :  do  you  hope  to  continue,  to  perpetuate,  to  in- 
graft it  on  cur  republican  system,  to  transmit  it  to  posterity  ? 
You  can  not  do  it !  History,  lifting  up  her  voice  of  experi- 
ence, declares  to  you  aloud,  that  you  can  not  do  it.  You 
may  legislate  against  the  current  for  the  hour,  for  the  day  : 
that  is  a  thing  within  human  power,  like  the  clock  over  your 
entrance  door.  You  may  put  back  the  hands  of  that  clock, 
till  it  shall  seem  as  if  the  day  grew  younger  instead  of  wan- 
ing. But  not  less  will  the  sun,  without,  hold  on  his  apparent 
course  through  the  heavens  ;  and  not  less  will  the  inexora- 
ble dial,  steady  to  truth,  continue  to  indicate  the  constant 
regularity  of  his  progress.  Do  you  still  demand  proof  of 
these  assertions  ?  Then  I  ask  you  briefly  to  review  the  his- 
tory of  the  American  protective  system  ;  to  trace  its  rise  ;  to 
follow  out  its  progress  ;  to  note  the  symptoms,  not  to  be 
mistaken,  of  its  decay. 

Mr.  0.  alluded  first  to  the  first  tariff  bill,  in  1789.  The 
young  republic  had  just  brought  to  a  close  an  expensive  war, 
and  incurred  a  debt  of  nearly  $80,000,000  ;  and  her  manu- 
factures were  in  their  infancy.  Yet  the  duties  were  only 
from  5  to  15  per  cent.  They  were  slightly  increased  in  1790, 
and  again  in  1794,  and  for  many  successive  years.  Through- 


360  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  FChap.  XV. 

out  nearly  the  first  quarter  of  a  century  after  the  establish- 
ment of  our  Government,  no  ad  valorem  duty  whatever,  higher 
than  20  per  cent,  was  imposed,  except  on  a  single  article  of 
luxury,  wines  ;  arid  the  specific  duties  were  on  a  scale  of 
similar  moderation. 

In  1816  it  was  that  we  first  began  to  copy,  from  England, 
the  policy  of  protection  for  protection's  sake,  and  to  raise  the 
ecale  of  duties  without  reference  to  revenue.  This  foreign 
plant  seemed  to  thrive,  for  a  brief  space,  in  republican  soil. 
The  tariff  of  1820  failed,  it  is  true  ;  but  in  1824,  and  again 
in  1828  and  1832,  the  system,  christened,  in  very  defiance  of 
its  parentage,  American,  was  sanctioned  and  extended.  One 
thing,  however,  ought  to  be  remembered.  The  first  tariffs  of 
moderate  duties,  framed  on  a  revenue  scale,  passed  with  a 
degree  of  unanimity  unknown  in  modern  days. 

The  majorities  continued  large  until  the  protective  doc- 
trines of  1816  were  flung,  as  a  firebrand,  into  our  legislative 
hall.  From  that  moment  they  diminished.  Bitter  quarrels, 
ending  in  lean  majorities,  mark  the  entire  period  of  our  high 
protective  tariffs.  That  of  1824  passed,  in  a  House  of  209 
members,  by  a  majority  of  5  only,  and  in  the  Senate,  of  4  : 
that  of  1828,  by  a  majority  of  9  in  one  House,  and  5  in  the 
other.  The  tariff  of  1832  obtained  a  somewhat  better  vote  ; 
but  it  had  not  been  a  law  six  months  until  it  kindled,  through- 
out  the  Union,  scenes  of  sectional  strife  such  as  no  other 
question — not  that  of  slavery  itself — has  ever  had  power  to 
call  forth  in  this  republic.  It  brought  upon  us  the  days  of 
nullification.  Dark  and  perilous  days  I  when  each  courier 
tha-t  sped  from  the  South  might  come  charged  with  tidings  of 
wo  and  of  blood.  The  boldest  looked  on  with  dismay.  The 
most  hopeful  half  despaired  of  the  republic.  .  .  Is  that  an 
American  system  that  sows  hate  in  the  hearts  of  freemen  ; 
that  makes  brother  the  enemy  of  brother  ;  that  arrays  sec- 
tion in  opposition  to  section ;  that  arms  a  State  against  the 
Confederacy  ? 

The  distinguished  father  of  that  system  himself  felt,  when 
the  day  of  trial  came,  that  it  was  not  American  ;  that  it  could 
not  live  on  in  a  republican  atmosphere  ;  that,  after  a  brief 
time,  it  must  be  uprooted,  and  cast  away.  Mr.  Clay  saw  Mr. 
Vcrplunck's  bill  making  its  way  through  the  House.  He 
bowed,  as  all  men  must,  to  the  fiat  of  necessity  ;  but  he  did 
more  ;  he  gave  way  gracefully,  in  good  temper,  in  good  sea- 
son. Henry  Clay  and  John  C.  Calhoun  together  voted  for 
the  compromise  bill  ;  and  South  Carolina  disbanded  her  troops 


1846.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  361 

and  returned — if  of  a  sovereign  State  the  expression  be  per- 
mitted— returned  to  her  allegiance. 

The  nine  years  of  graduated  reduction  of  duties,  under  the 
compromise,  ran  out  on  the  30th  of  June,  1842  ;  and  thus 
the  day  for  the  final  ratification  of  that  "  treaty  of  peace  and 
amity"  arrived.  Its  pledge — morally  binding,  if  ever  legis- 
lative pledge  was — was  to  the  effect  that,  after  the  said  oOth 
day  of  June,  imports  should  be  "  admitted  to  entry  subject  to 
such  duty,  not  exceeding  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  as  shall  be 
provided  for  by  law."  It  is  a  fair  inference  from  the  general 
tenor  of  the  act,  that,  in  case  of  actual  deficiency  of  revenue, 
but  in  no  other,  this  limit  might  be  exceeded.  This  low  max- 
imum, it  is  proper  to  remark,  was  coupled  with  a  home  val- 
uation, cash  duties,  and  a  prospective  free  list. 

Mr.  Clay  held  out,  for  a  time,  against  the  Home  Leaguers. 
On  the  first  of  March,  1842,  he  said  in  the  Senate,  the  pro- 
visions of  the  law,"  [the  compromise,]  "  ought  not  lightly  to 
be  departed  from."  Yet,  as  the  day  of  final  decision  [of  the 
tariff  bill]  more  closely  approached,  the  father  of  the  protec- 
tive system,  pressed,  perhaps,  by  the  rash  urgency  of  friends 
less  clear  sighted  than  himself,  Mr.  Clay,  in  his  Lexington 
speech  of  June  9,  1842,  permitted  himself  to  say  :  "Another 
remedy,  powerfully  demanded  by  the  necessities  of  the  times, 
and  requisite  to  maintain  the  currency  in  a  sound  state,  is 
a  tariff  which  will  lessen  importations  from  abroad,  and 
tend  to  increase  supplies  at  home  from  domestic  industry." 
This  was  a  distinct  relapse  into  the  old  exploded  abuse. 

This  seems  to  have  been  the  signal  for  a  concerted  assault 
on  the  compromise  and  its  principles.  The  embarrassments 
of  the  day  aided  the  project,  and  privilege  had  one  brief  tri- 
umph more.  The  tariff  of  1842  was  passed.  .  .  Under 
the  pressure  of  necessity,  as  it  were,  the  measure  won  its 
way  with  extreme  difficulty  to  the  statute  book.  Twice  it 
was  defeated  in  the  House  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  Speak- 
er ;  and  it  succeeded  there  at  last  by  a  reluctant  majority  of 
two  stragglers,  their  votes  coming  in  at  the  last  moment, 
even  after  the  decision  had  been  announced. 

in  the  Senate  it  passed  by  a  bare  majority  of  one — Mr. 
Wright  and  Mr.  Buchanan  both  voting  for  it  under  protest. 
Mr.  Wright  "  assumed  that  this  bill  must  pass  in  the  form  it 
no  w  bears,  or  that  no  revenue  law  could  pass  at  the  present 
session." 

The  bill  now  before  us  concedes  much  to  interests  hitherto 
pj  ivileged  ;  and  proposes  moderate  reform  only.  Its  aver- 


362  TI1E  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV. 

age  rate,  as  nearly  as  can  now  be  ascertained,  will  be  about 
24 1  per  cent.  ;  and  thus  the  average  of  all  its  duties,  high 
and  low,  taken  together,  is,  in  fact,  4J  per  cent,  higher  than 
the  very  highest  contemplated  by  the  compromise.  Its  prin- 
cipal schedule,  including  the  staples  of  iron,  coal,  woolen 
goods,  clothing,  carpeting,  saddlery,  paper,  wines,  and  many 
other  staples,  is  put  at  30  per  cent.  ;  being  a  tax  higher  by 
one-half  than  the  maximum  of  the  compromise.  Cotton  and 
silk  goods  bear  a  duty  of  25  per  cent.  Its  duties  are  wholly 
ad  valorem,  the  only  fair  principle  of  taxation  ;  and  in  this  it 
but  carries  out  one  of  the  pledges  of  the  compromise,  of 
which  the  equity  has  been  repeatedly  acknowledged  by  Mr. 
Clay. 

I  am  the  friend  of  compromise  and  conciliation.  In  that 
spirit  has  the  present  proposal  to  modify  the  tariff  been  framed 
by  its  projectors.  In  that  spirit  let  our  brethren  from  the 
manufacturing  States  come  half  way  to  meet  us  ;  and  we 
may  once  more,  with  the  unanimity  of  the  olden  time,  pass  a 
revenue  law  by  a  majority  so  large,  that  there  will  be  little 
motive  or  disposition,  for  many  years  to  come,  to  alter  its 
rates  or  disturb  its  provisions. 

Mr.  Collin,  of  N.  Y.,  Dem.,  advocated  the  bill.  He  said  : 
I  have  made  some  minute  calculations  upon  the  revenue  that 
would  accrue  under  the  provisions  of  the  bill  under  consider- 
ation, and  I  have  ascertained  that  even  if  the  commerce  of 
the  country  should  not  be  increased,  yet  the  reduction  of 
revenue  would  be  too  small  to  be  for  one  moment  taken  into 
account,  in  the  comparison,  to  the  benefit  that  would  accrue 
to  the  interests,  the  morals,  the  whole  industry  of  the  coun- 
try. Statistics  show  us  that  it  requires  eight  times  as  much 
labor,  and  five  times  as  much  capital,  in  a  given  amount  in 
agriculture,  as  are  required  in  the  same  amount  in  the  manu- 
facture of  woolen  goods.  Each  of  the  other  protected  inter- 
ests does  not  vary  materially  in  this  estimate  from  that  of 
the  woolen  manufactures.  If  it  should  be  argued  that  manu- 
factures require  protection  in  consequence  of  the  cheap  inter- 
est on  capital  in  Europe,  it  must  be  answered,  that  agricul- 
ture has  five  times  greater  reason  to  require  it.  If  it  should 
be  argued  that  manufactures  require  protection  in  consequence 
of  the  high  price  of  labor,  it  must  be  answered,  that  agricul- 
ture has  from  six  to  eight  times  greater  reason  to  require  it 
for  the  same  cause.  And  yet  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  is  gravely  debating  whether  the  country  ought  net  to 
be  taxed  for  the  benefit  of  manufactures,  the  gentleman 


1846.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  333 

from  Pennsylvania,  [Mr.  Stewart,]  in  advocating  that  tax, 
says  it  is  no  party  question.  Gentlemen  should  never  have 
dignified  it  by  the  name  of  an  American  question.  It  is  a 
question,  sir,  that  has  more  of  the  characteristics  of  the  Arab 
• — it  is  a  great  question  of  plunder. 

England,  deprived  of  the  resources  of  continental  Europe 
and  of  America  for  her  bread-stuffs,  began  a  conflict  with  na- 
ture to  try  to  raise  them  herself.  We,  too,  had  adopted  many 
artificial  substitutes  for  those  facilities  which  nature  or  cir- 
cumstances had  seemed  to  deny  us.  Such  was  the  state  of 
things  at  the  establishment  of  universal  peace  in  the  year 
1815.  In  each  nation,  large  capitals  had  been  invested, 
hrough  the  necessity  of  the  case,  in  enterprises  which  must 
jave  been  sacrificed,  by  coming  into  equal  competition  with 
.hose  more  favored  by  nature  and  circumstances  in  the  same 
•.ursuits.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  first  laws  of  any 
magnitude  were  passed,  securing  a  monopoly  of  interest  to 
any  one  class  of  men,  and  throwing  embarrassments  in  the 
way  of  commercial  prosperity.  But  these  restrictive  laws 
were  never  intended  to  be  permanent  ;  but  to  remain  only 
till  men  had  indemnified  themselves  for  their  capital  invested, 
and  then  to  abandon  or  pursue  them,  as  circumstances  and 
experience  would  justify.  It  was  with  such  views  as  these 
that  the  patriotic  Democracy  of  the  country  favored  and 
passed  the  laws  of  1816  and  1824.  Since  1830,  that  same 
Democracy  conceived  that  the  experiment  had  been  tried 
long  enough  ;  that  the  country  had  endured  taxation  for  a 
privileged  class  as  long  as  justice  and  experiment  could 
require. 

Mr.  C.  examined  the  condition  and  extent  of  some  of  the 
leading  manufacturing  interests,  especially  those  of  wool  and 
iron,  and  the  effects  of  the  protection  they  had  received — 
one  of  which  was  the  increased  prices  of  the  articles  protect, 
ed.  It  is  strange,  said  Mr.  C.,  that  it  ever  should  have  been 
claimed  that  an  increase  of  duties  did  not  increase  the  price 
of  goods  to  the  consumer.  To  question  it  is  preposterous  ; 
and  the  subejct  is  one  that  need  not  be  left  to  abstract  rea- 
soning, but  is  susceptible  of  actual  demonstration.  Those 
who  contend  that  the  price  is  not  increased  to  the  consumer, 
say  that  the  foreigner  pays  the  duty.  Now,  in  order  to  have 
the  foreigner  pay  the  duty,  the  price  of  imported  goods  must 
fall  in  the  foreign  market  to  the  amount  of  the  increase  of 
duty.  By  comparing  the  prices  of  those  foreign  imports  upon 
which  the  duties  were  increased  by  the  act  of  1842,  in  our 


864  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV 

commercial  records,  in  seven  cases  out  of  eight  it  will  be 
found,  that  the  foreign  valuation  on  those  imports  was  higher 
in  1845  than  it  was  in  1841.  In  most  of  the  cases  where 
there  has  not  been  an  actual  increase,  the  price  has  remained 
stationary.  This,  sir,  proves  beyond  cavil,  that  the  foreigner 
pays  no  part  of  those  increased  duties.  It  will  be  seen  also, 
that  upon  those  products  upon  which  the  duties  have  been 
increased,  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  there  has  been  a  corres- 
ponding increase  in  the  price  in  commercial  cities  ;  showing 
conclusively  that  the  increase  of  duties  not  only  taxed  the 
consumer  on  the  imports,  but  on  the  whole  of  such  produc- 
tions, whether  of  foreign  or  of  home  manufacture. 

But,  sir,  this  increase  of  duties  produces  to  the  people  of 
this  country  a  greater  injury  than  the  increased  price  of 
goods  to  the  consumer.  That  injury  is  the  reduction  in  price 
upon  all  the  fruits  of  agricultural  labor.  I  have  made  an  es- 
timate from  our  records  of  the  difference  in  price  upon  almost 
all  the  productions  of  agriculture  between  the  years  1841 
and  1845  ;  and  I  will  have  published,  for  the  information  of 
the  people  of  this  country,  the  result.  The  gross  amount  of 
exports  (estimated)  is  $75,954,528.  At  the  prices  of  the 
same  products  in  1845,  they  would  have  sold  for  $32,839,859 
less,  or  at  a  loss  of  43  per  cent.  This  is  the  evidence  of  that 
prosperity  so  much  vaunted  on  this  floor.  This  is  the  fruit  of 
that  tariff  so  loudly  lauded  here.  Let  gentlemen  examine 
the  records,  and  they  will  convince  themselves,  that  though 
the  manufacturers  are  heaping  up  their  millions,  the  coun- 
try is  suffering  ;  that  the  law  giving  bounties  to  manufac- 
turers is  sapping  the  very  foundation  of  the  prosperity  of  the 
Country.* 

*  Of  the  amount  of  exports  here  given,  $75,954.528,  more  than  four- 
fifths,  or  $61,309,918,  were  received  for  the  three  Southern  staples,  cotton, 
rice,  and  tobacco,  on  which  the  estimated  loss  was  $29,777,144,  being  more 
than  48  per  cent.;  leaving  only  $14.584,610  for  all  other  productions,  on 
which  the  estimated  loss  was  $3,062.715,  or  less  than  25  per  cent.  As  the 
South  has  the  monopoly  of  the  market  both  in  this  country  and  Europe, 
for  her  great  staples,  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  how  the  tariff  could  depress 
their  value  nearly  one-half,  if  at  all.  Of  the  value  of  these  staples,  cotton 
constitutes  $51,789,648,  on  which  is  estimated  a  loss  of  $24,599,530.  Is  it 
at  all  probable  that  this  depression  of  the  price  of  cotton  could  have  been 
caused  by  the  tariff  1 

Of  the  other  articles  of  exports,  flour  is  the  greatest  in  amount,  $5,398,- 
693 ;  estimated  loss  about  12  per  cent,  only  ;  which  is  not  a  greater  varia- 
tion than  has  often  occurred  from  other  causes  than  tariffs.  On  pot  and 
pearl  ashes,  there  is  »et  down  a  loss  of  just  one-half.  Is  it  probable  that 


1846.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  365 

Mr.  Rockwell,  of  Con.,  maintained  that  the  manufacturers, 
as  a  class,  had  not  been  benefited  by  the  protective  policy  ; 
that  their  profits  had  not  only  not  been  as  large  as  those 
stated  in  the  Secretary's  report,  but  had  not  been  equal  to 
the  lowest  legal  rate  of  interest  in  the  country  ;  and  he  ad- 
duced testimony  from  several  reliable  sources  in  confirma- 
tion of  his  declaration.  He  said  :  The  outcry  is  often  made 
against  the  capitalists  engaged  in  the  manufacturing  busi- 
ness ;  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  joins  in  and  en- 
courages the  idle  clamor.  It  is  true,  that  for  two  years  the 
profit  of  the  cotton  manufacturers  has  been  large,  but  not  as 
large  as  in  great  Britain  itself,  during  the  same  time  ;  and 
the  result  has  been  what  it  always  will  be,  that  a  large  num- 
ber of  persons  are  now  rushing  into  the  business,  and  before 
this  Congress  shall  cease  to  exist — if  there  could  be  any  se- 
curity that  the  tariff  would  be  undisturbed — the  number  of 
cotton  spindles  in  operation  would  be  fifty  per  cent,  more 
than  there  were  a  year  since.  Does  not  every  body  know 
that,  with  the  enterprise,  and  skill,  and  energy  of  the  people 
of  this  country,  no  one  branch  of  business  can,  for  any  length 
of  time,  exceed  in  profits  the  average  of  the  profits  of  other 
branches  ?  Competition  is  sure  to  reduce  prices  and  profits. 
The  result  is  an  inevitable  one  ;  and  to  contend  the  contrary, 
is  to  show  the  grossest  ignorance,  not  only  of  the  uniform 
operations  of  trade,  but  of  the  operations  of  the  human  mind, 
and  of  the  motives  which  govern  it.  How  absurd,  then,  is  it 
to  contend  that  the  object  and  effect  of  protection  is  mainly 
to  benefit  capitalists,  or  that  such  has  been  the  result  in  the 
protection  to  manufacturing  and  mechanical  labor  inciden- 
tally afforded. 

Mr.  R.  also  maintained  that  the  laboring  classes  had  been 
greatly  benefited,  and  the  wages  of  labor  had  been  thereby 
increased,  at  the  same  time  that  the  expenses  of  subsistence 
had  been  diminished.  Every  one  would  know  beforehand 
that  this  must  be  the  result.  If  increased  activity  is  given 

the  price  of  this  product  was  reduced  one-half,  or  if  it  was,  that  the  tariff 
could  have  done  it  7  On  the  article  of  ginseng.  $177,146,  the  loss  is  esti- 
mated at  $105,  717,  almost  a  total  loss!  The  export  of  flax  seed  was 
$81,978,  on  which  the  tal-le  shows  a  loss  of  $214.602,  or  two  and  a  half 
times  greater  than  the  amount  exported  !  Exports  of  hops,  $90,341; 
loss,  $54,204.  Since  the  tariff  act  of  1846.  which  Mr.  C.  was  then  advo- 
cating, hops  have  fallen  in  price  from  40  cents  to  7  cents  a  pound.  Was 
this  caused  by  the  tariff  7  Over  production  or  scarcity  is  a  more  frequent 
cause  of  fluctuation  in  prices  of  agricultural  products. 


3G6  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV. 

to  manufacturing  or  mechanical  business,  and  there  is  conse- 
quently an  increased  demand  for  laborers,  does  not  every 
child  know  that  this  has  a  direct  tendency  to  enhance  the 
price  of  wages  ?  and,  on  the  contrary,  if  by  the  reduction  of 
the  tariff,  or  any  cause,  the  business  is  rendered  unprofitable, 
that  the  employer  must,  as  a  matter  of  course,  close  his  mill 
or  his  workshop,  or  reduce  the  price  paid  to  the  persons  em- 
ployed ?  But  the  reckless  assertion  of  the  contrary  by  the 
Secretary,  is  not  only  unsound  in  principle,  but  untrue  in  fact. 
It  is  not  true  that  the  wages  of  male  or  female  labor  have  di- 
minished in  consequence  of  the  protective  system  ;  but  pre- 
cisely the  contrary  is  true.  [Mr.  R.  here  referred  to  prices 
taken  from  manufacturers'  books  at  different  periods,  show- 
ing that  wages  had  increased.]  "What  the  effect  would 
otherwise  have  been  of  the  opening  of  the  fertile  West  upon 
the  prices  of  the  productions  of  the  old  States,  and  conse- 
quently the  wages  of  labor,  any  one  can  form  his  own  opin- 
ion. And  it  is  one  of  the  most  surprising  and  beneficial  re- 
sults of  the  introduction  of  manufactures,  that  a  market  has 
been  afforded  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  factories  for  the  pro- 
ducts of  the  farmer,  and  the  price  has  remained  nearly  the 
same  for  the  last  forty  years.  On  the  other  hand,  every  arti- 
cle of  clothing  has  declined  in  price  ;  so  that  the  dollar  now 
paid  to  the  laborer  will  purchase  from  thirty  to  fifty  percent, 
more  of  all  the  necessaries  of  life  than  in  1816,  and  of  the 
ordinary  cotton  cloth  and  calicoes,  more  than  three  times  as 
much. 

These  facts  are  well  known  to  persons  residing  in  the 
manufacturing  sections  of  the  country.  There  is  not  on  the 
face  of  the  globe  a  class  of  laborers  so  well  paid,  or  who, 
from  their  high  moral  character,  education,  intelligence,  and 
industry,  deserve  to  be  so  well  paid,  as  those  engaged  in  the 
various  branches  of  labor  in  this  country.  There  are  no 
paupers  in  any  of  them  ;  and  they  are,  as  a  class,  unusually 
free  from  all  forms  of  vice.  You  see  a  thriving,  industrious, 
happy  population.  The  accumulations  of  labor  in  the  facto- 
ries are  deposited  in  savings  banks,  which  are  now  every 
where  to  be  found. 

The  following  statement  shows  the  amount  of  the  deposits 
in  the  savings  banks  of  Massachusetts,  and  the  income  from 
year  to  year  : 

1841,  No.  of  depositors,  30,832    Amt.  deposited,  $6,485,424 

1842,  "  41,102        "  "  6,675,878 
1845,      "                 "            54,256        "             "  9,214,964 


1846. j  SECRETARY  WALKER'S  REPORT.  367 

Similar  has  been  the  result  in  my  own  State,  with  tho 
operatives  of  which  I  am  familiar,  although  I  have  not  in 
possession  the  precise  amount  of  deposits  or  number  of  de- 
positors. 

If  it  is  said,  as  it  is,  that  tho  wages  of  labor  have  dimin- 
ished since  the  tariff  of  1842,  I  deny  the  fact.  I  know,  per- 
sonally, from  the  manufacturing  region  from  which  I  come, 
that  it  is  not  true.  The  same  testimony  is  also  furnished 
from  Lowell,  and  the  same  facts  exist  in  every  part  of  the 
country.  Why,  sir,  there  is  not  a  girl  in  one  of  those  mills 
who  would  be  guilty  of  such  folly  as  to  suppose  for  a  mo- 
ment, that  when  the  demand  for  laborers  is  increased,  the 
price  of  labor  will  be  thereby  diminished,  or  will  not  be,  on 
the  contrary,  increased.  Some  of  these  political  philoso- 
phers, these  closet  politicians,  these  wise  custom-house 
officers,  and  learned  Secretaries,  could  learn  some  very  use- 
ful lessons  in  political  economy,  and  common  sense,  too,  from 
the  women  and  children  in  a  cotton  mill. 

I  beg  to  ask  these  men,  after  deducting  the  very  moderate 
profit  received  by  the  capitalists,  Who  have  received  the  enor- 
mous sums  which  have  been  expended  in  the  erection  of 
mills  and  machinery,  and  the  annual  prosecution  of  the  work  ? 
It  is  found  in  the  various  forms  of  labor — -the  brickmaker  and 
bricklayer,  the  carpenter,  the  lime-burner,  the  nail-maker,  the 
painter,  the  glass-blower,  the  stone-mason,  the  common  labor- 
er, the  farmer  who  raises  the  food  to  feed  these  men,  are  first 
employed  ;  and  these,  together  with  the  makers  of  machin- 
ery, the  builders  of  the  dam  and  water-wheel,  or  steam  en- 
gine, receive  what  is  called  the  capital  paid  in  and  perma- 
nently invested  ;  and  the  laborers  in  the  mills,  and  the  grow- 
er of  the  raw  materials,  the  transporter  and  other  intermedi- 
ate laborers  receive  as  their  pay  the  sum  received  from  the 
sale  of  the  goods  after  deducting  a  profit,  if  there  is  one,  to 
fche  capitalist.  If  there  is  no  profit,  they  receive  the  whole. 
If  the  business  is  a  losing  one,  they  receive  the  whole,  and 
receive  something  in  addition. 

But,  it  is  said,  the  poor  laborer  is  enormously  taxed  for  tho 
necessaries  of  life — especially  his  clothing — and  is  thereby 
grievously  oppressed.  I  do  not  know  a  laborer,  sir,  who 
would  not  laugh  in  the  face  of  any  man  who  should  address 
him  with  such  language.  He  might  be  mistaken  ;  but  he 
would  consider  such  person  either  very  foolish,  or  not  very 
honest.  The  truth  is,  the  fact  is  ijpt  so.  There  is  no  coun- 
try in  the  world  where  the  laboring  classes  can  be  clad  as 


368  TUB  PItOlKCTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV. 

cheaply  and  as  well  as  in  this  country.  I  make  the  declara- 
tion understandingly  ;  and  the  most  rigid  scrutiny  will  sus- 
tain the  correctness  of  it.  It  is  not  true  that  the  tariff  of 
1842  is  oppressive  to  the  poor.  The  duties  are  almost  en- 
tirely raised  from  articles  which  are  luxurious.  So  far  as  the 
duties  are  apparently  high  upon  the  coarser  cloths,  they  are 
entirely  inoperative,  because  we  can  make  such  articles 
cheaper  than  they  can  be  made  abroad  ;  and  a  conclusive 
proof  of  that  is,  that  we  undersell  Great  Britain  herself  in 
China,  South  America,  and  India,  until  a  duty  was  imposed 
to  protect  English  goods.  If  there  is  any  exception,  it  is  su- 
gar, where  the  duty  is  a  heavy  one  ;  but  as  tea  and  coffee 
are  free,  it  is  not  oppressive  ;  and  the  competition  in  the  su- 
gar culture,  as  in  every  thing  else,  will  soon  reduce  the 
price. 

Mr.  R.  spoke  of  the  interest  of  the  agricultural  classes  in 
the  protective  system.  The  benefit  to  the  farmers  in  the  vi- 
cinity of,  or  in  the  midst  of,  a  mechanical  or  manufacturing 
population,  no  one  can  have  the  hardihood  to  dispute.  Its 
benefits  are  shown  in  the  ready  markets,  without  distant 
transportation,  for  the  infinite  variety  of  articles  which 
would  otherwise  find  no  market  at  all,  or  at  reduced  prices,  and 
at  a  distance.  These  articles,  individually  small,  and  often 
unnoticed,  in  the  aggregate  often  constitute  the  principal 
market  of  the  farmer — such  as  wood,  grains  of  some  kinds, 
hay,  fresh  meats,  butter,  cheese,  fruits,  vegetables,  and  simi- 
lar articles  of  daily  household  consumption. 

But  it  is  said,  that  in  the  new  States  at  the  West  they 
have  few  manufactures  ;  and  the  cultivators  of  the  soil  have 
there  no  interest  in  common  with  the  mechanic  and  manu- 
facturer. I  deny  it.  Who  have  been  the  consumers  of  the 
Western  products  ?  Where  have  they  heretofore  found  a 
m  irket  for  their  surplus  products?  Has  it  been  abroad? 
Tiie  whole  amount  of  agricultural  productions  exported  dur- 
ing the  year,  to  all  the  nations  of  the  globe,  with  the  excep- 
•  i'  rice,  cotton,  and  tobacco,  as  shown  by  the  annual  re- 
port of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  commerce  and  nav- 
:i,  was  $16,000,000.  What  has  been  the  amount 
:::ied  at  home  ?  The  home  market  is  the  great  market  ; 
>;ne  commerce  is  the  most  valuable  commerce  of  any 
country. 

But,  it  is  said,  that  Sir  Uobert  Peel  has  at  last  succeeded 
in  opening  the  English  ports  to  foreign  grain.  And  what 
then  ?  If  this  furnishes  any  market  for  our  produce,  I  shall  ro- 


1846.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  369 

joice  at  it.*  The  policy,  I  have  no  doubt,  was  a  wise  one  for 
Great  Britain  to  pursue,  if  she  wished,  as  she  does,  to  foster 
her  manufactures,  and  to  retain  her  ascendency  as  a  manu- 
facturing nation,  now  assailed  every  where  on  the  continent 
of  Europe.  Her  policy  has  always  been  to  admit  the  raw  ma- 
terial duty  free.  It  is  on  this  principle  that  she  now  admits, 
at  low  duties,  necessary  food,  one  effect  and  object  of  which 
is,  to  enable  her  to  manufacture  at  cheaper  rates.  Her  man-, 
ufactures  have  been  established  by  the  protection  of  ages. 
They  have  now  the  benefit  of  the  utmost  skill,  of  cheap  cap- 
ital and  cheap  labor,  and  are  not  in  danger  of  serious  compe- 
tition at  home.  But  does  any  man  in  his  senses  suppose 
that,  if  the  taking  off  of  a  duty  would  prostrate  or  seriously 
injure  the  manufacturers  of  England,  she  would  take  off  that 
duty  ? 

But  there  can  be  no  very  great  advantage  to  our  farmers 
from  the  repeal  of  the  corn  laws.  The  average  amount  of 
wheat  imported  into  Great  Britain  from  abroad,  does  not 
exceed  15,000,000  bushels.  And  if,  when  we  had  a  heavy 
discrimination  in  our  favor  through  Canada,  we  could  not 
compete  with  the  nations  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  who 
are  heavily  taxed,  what  reason  have  we  to  suppose  that  we 
can  do  so  now  ?  Why,  sir,  at  this  precise  moment,  when  it 
is  known  that  the  corn  law  is  repealed,  and  there  has  been 
almost  a  famine  in  the  country,  flour  has  fallen  fifty  per  cent, 
in  its  price  at  some  points,  and  is  now  lower  than  it  has  been 
for  3^ears.  Some  of  the  followers  of  Mr.  Secretary  Walker 
have  ample  means,  arid  1  presume  some  few  arc  business 
men.  Why  do  they  not  show  us  their  honesty  by  buying  up 
this  cheap  flour,  and  selling  it  at  a  great  profit  in  England  ? 
No,  sir  ;  it  is  a  great  deal  cheaper,  and  a  great  deal  safer, 
for  a  demagogue  to  rise — I  don't  mean  here,  for  we  have  no 
such  here,  of  course,  but  on  the  stump — and  declare  that  it  ia 
all  the  work  of  the  British  Yvrhigs,f  and  the  lords  of  the  loom, 
and  the  bank  barons. 

But,  sir,  what  is  to  prevent  the  West  from  embarking  ex- 
tensively in  the  manufacturing  business  ?  It  was  said  by 
one  of  the  wisest  of  British  statesmen,  that  all  that  England 
wanted  for  manufactures,  was  cheap  iron,  cheap  fuel,  and 
cheap  wool.  All  this  the  West  has,  and  in  addition,  cheap 

*  Intelligence  had  been  received  since  the  bill  under  discussion  was  in- 
troduced, of  the  repeal  of  the  British  corn  laws. 

•f- An  opprobrious  name  applied  to  the  Whig  party,  intended  to  repre- 
sent Whigs  as  sympathizing  with  the  British  aristocracy. 

16* 


370  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV. 

food,  and  cheap  land  ;  and  if  the  system  of  protection  is  es- 
established,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  the  West  and  the 
South  from  embarking-  in  manufacturing  labor.  It  is  of  the 
utmost  importance  to  the  grain  growing  States  to  have  a 
market,  not  only  in  this  country,  but  strictly  at  home.  From 
many  sections  of  the  West,  it  now  costs  as  much  to  trans- 
port their  wheat,  and  even  their  Indian  corn,  to  market,  as  it 
does  to  raise  it.  I  know  of  no  other  reason  why  the  fertile 
lands  in  the  valley  of  the  Connecticut  river  are  worth  $100 
or  $200,  and  those  of  Illinois,  of  at  least  equal  fertility,  are 
worth  $5  per  acre. 

But,  sir,  suppose  these  700,000  persons  who  are  now  me- 
chanics and  manufacturers,  or  any  considerable  portion  of 
them,  should  cease  to  be  consumers  of  the  products  of  the 
soil,  and  should  be  themselves  producers,  what  would  then 
be  the  result  ?  I  think  it  would  be  a  hard  matter  for  any 
theorist  or  politician  of  any  school  to  persuade  any  sensible, 
practical  farmer,  that  this  greatly  diminished  consumption  at 
home,  and  greatly  increased  production,  would  be  made  up 
to  him  by  any  market  he  could  find  abroad  ;  and  that  it 
would  be  better  for  him  to  run. the  risk  of  sending  his  pro- 
ductions to  those  who  have  heretofore  purchased  so  sparingly, 
and  also  some  three  or  four  thousand  miles  distant,  instead 
of  saving  the  transportation,  and  securing  a  certain  market 
within  a  thousand  miles,  or  a  hundred  miles,  or  at  his  next 
door,  and  in  his  own  country,  and  among  his  own  people. 

On  the  30th  of  June,  an  attack  was  made  upon  the  bill 
from  an  unexpected  quarter,  which  was  followed  by  several 
amendments. 

Mr.  Brinkerhoff,  of  Ohio,  a  leading  administration  member, 
announced  that  he  would  not,  and  he  presumed  he  might  say 
of  all  the  Democratic  delegation  from  Ohio,  that  they  would 
not,  vote  for  the  bill  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means. 
Ho  was  opposed  to  taxing  tea  and  coffee.  And  striking  them 
out,  would  there  be  revenue  enough  for  the  use  of  the  Gov- 
ernment ?  He  was  in  favor  of  a  revenue  tariff ;  not  a  tariff 
for  the  destruction  of  the  revenue.  The  average  annual  ex- 
penditures had  been  nearly  $26,000,000  ;  and  this  bill,  with- 
out tea  and  coffee,  would  not  produce  $18,000,000.  But  it 
was  asked,  "  Will  you  not  vote  this  as  a  war  tax  ?"  He  re- 
plied in  the  negative,  and  gave  as  reasons  the  dissatisfaction 
which  they  of  Ohio  felt  at  the  neglect  they  had  received  from, 
and  the  want  of  influence  possessed  by  them  in  the  adminis- 
tration ;  and  also  at  the  surrender  of  a  Western  Empire, 


1846.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  371 


[Oregon,]  while  a  war  was  waged  for  Southern  territory, 
[Mexico.]  Even  if  the  duties  on  tea  and  coffee  were  struck 
out,  he  would,  prefer  the  existing  law  to  the  bill  before  the 
House. 

The  debate  was  continued  with  animation  and  considerable 
acrimony,  until  the  time  appointed  for  its  termination,  when 
amendments  in  rapid  succession  began  to  be  proposed,  Mr. 
McKay  himself  leading  the  way.  The  duty  on  spirits  was 
raised  from  75  to  100  per  cent.,  by  a  vote  of  93  to  64.  The 
fishing  bounties  were  repealed,  107  to  69.  Tea  and  coffee 
were  exempted  from  duty,  104  to  60.  This  of  course  made 
other  alterations  necessary  in  order  to  produce  sufficient 
revenue.  The  bill  was  at  length  (July  3,)  passed  by  a  vote 
of  114  to  95. 

In  the  Senate,  the  bill,  without  the  usual  previous  refer- 
ence to  a  committee,  which  was  resisted  by  its  friends,  was 
taken  up  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  on  the  13th  of  July. 

Mr.  Lewis,  of  Ala.,  Chairman  of  the  Cjmmittee  on  Finance, 
spoke  in  support  of  the  bil1.  Ho  defended  the  ad  valorem  prin- 
ciple of  laying  duties,  and  denied  that  frauds,  by  means  of 
false  invoices,  were  practiced  to  any  considerable  extent  ; 
and  he  undertook  to  show,  by  a  sorios  of  suppositions,  that 
there  could  be  little  inducement  to  any  attempt  of  this  kind. 
No  man,  in  his  sober  senses,  he  said,  would  incur  such  a  risk 
for  such  a  paltry  consideration.  He  said,  so  far  from  the  im- 
porter having  an  interest  in  undervaluing  his  goods,  it  was 
rather  his  advantage  to  overvalue  them.  This  he  illustrated 
by  the  folio  vving  case  :  In  1841,  a  merchant  of  New  York 
contracted  with  an  ironmonger  of  Birmingham,  for  certain 
kinds  of  goods  to  be  delivered  in  equal  quantities  for  five 
successive  years.  In  the  mean  time,  iron  rose  in  valua  so 
much  as  to  compel  the  ironmonger  to  raise  the  article  to  a,H 
other  customers  20  per  cent.  He  still  continued  to  send  iron 
to  Mr.  Newbould. according  to  contract.  The  appraisers  at 
the  custom-house,  observing  the  discrepancy  between  the  in- 
voices to  Mr.  N.  and  those  of  his  neighbors,  felt  themselves 
bound,  under  the  law,  not  only  to  impose  the  same  duty  as 
the  others  paid,  but  also  the  penalty  of  50  per  cent,  required 
by  the  act  of  1842.  Mi*.  N.  was  obliged  to  give  up  his  good 
contract,  as  it  was  a  losing  business.  Mr.  L.  said  frauds  had 
been  repeatedly  charged,  but  on  investigation  they  could  not 
be  made  out ;  and  he  presented  some  documentarj'  proof  to 
this  effect. 

He  proceeded  to   state    his    objections   to   specific  duties. 


373  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV 

They  were  more  favorable  to  fraud,  and  less  safe  and  efficient 
for  revenue  than  ad  valortm  duties.  They  increased  the  ex- 
pense and  the  difficulty  of  collecting  the  revenue.  The  col- 
lection required  a  mucL  larger  number  of  clerks,  weighers, 
measurers,  &c.  Most  of  the  contested  cases  coming  before 
the  comptrollers  and  the  courts  for  decision,  arose  from  spe- 
cific duties. 

Mr.  L.  defended  the  bill  against  the  objection  that  it  would 
not  raise  sufficient  revenue.  Such  deficiency  could  only  re- 
sult in  case  the  duties  were  so  high  as  to  be  prohibitory. 
By  a  further  reduction,  more  revenue  could  be  obtained,  as  it 
would  increase  the  importations.  We  had  had  a  very  heavy 
free  list,  which  was  abolished  in  this  bill.  Duties  were  put 
on  every  thing  ;  and  on  some  of  these  articles  in  the  free 
list,  the  highest  rate  of  duty  was  now  imposed.  The  relaxa- 
tion of  duties  on  American  produce  by  Great  Britain,  would 
increase  our  exports  to  that  country,  and  produce  a  vast  in- 
crease of  importations.  Increased  exports  of  grain  had  been 
made  in  anticipation  of  the  repeal  of  the  corn  laws  ;  and 
what  would  be  the  effect  of  their  repeal,  of  which  we  have 
now  authentic  information?  It  was  difficult  to  say  what  in- 
crease of  imports  might  flow  from  the  reduction  of  duties  ; 
but  he  considered  a  necessary  consequence  of  reduced  duties 
to  have  increased  importations.  In  every  view  in  which  ho 
had  been  able  to  contemplate  this  measure,  he  was  convinced 
of  its  soundness  and  utility. 

Mr.  Evans,  of  Maine,  opposed  the  bill  as  radically  wrong 
in  principle.  Why  is  the  act  of  1842  to  be  overthrown  ?  It 
has  accomplished  all  that  its  friends  and  advocates  promised. 
It  has  yielded  an  adequate  revenue.  It  has  restored  public 
credit  and  public  confidence.  How  were  our  promises  and 
pledges  met?  Gentlemen  on  the  other  side  ridiculed  our 
professions  and  promises.  They  predicted  a  decline  in  the 
revenue,  and  destruction  to  our  commercial  interests.  It  was 
maintained  that  we  would  not  be  able  to  obtain  the  loans 
necessary  to  carry  on  the  Government — for  the  Treasury  was 
then  so  impoverished  that  the  Government  was  compelled  to 
borrow  12  or  15  millions.  I  recollect  that  one  gentleman 
contended,  that  we  should  be  obliged  to  give  $100  of  scrip 
for  $90  in  cash.  Well,  we  passed  the  law  authorizing  the 
loan,  and  not  a  dollar  could  we  get  till  this  revenue  bill  was 
1.  Then,  sir,  money  enough  could  be  obtained  at  a 
lower  rate  of  interest  than  that  authorized  to  be  paid.  The 
public  credit  advanced  at  once,  and  continued  to  advance, 


1846.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  373 

until  the  stocks  of  the  United  States  reached,  I  think,  a 
maximum  of  about  115  or  116. 

Mr.  E.  referred  to  the  receipts  of  the  revenue  under  that 
act  during  the  first  three  years,  and  said  :  Here  are  three 
successive  years  in  which  the  amount  received  into  the 
treasury  scarcely  varies.  There  are  no  such  other  three 
years  to  be  found  in  our  history,  or  any  thing  approaching 
to  them.  Search  our  statute  books,  and  you  look  in  vain  for 
any  other  law  whose  operation  has  been  so  uniform,  so  steady. 
During  these  three  years  we  have  had  none  of  those  fluctua- 
tions. 

Now  the  tariff  of  1842,  which  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Alabama  and  any  body  else  may  denounce  as  rascally,  and 
tyrannical,  and  villainous,  and  one  to  which  no  free  people 
should  submit,  has  at  least  one  merit — it  has  been  tried.  It 
has  been  only  three  years  in  operation  ;  but  during  that  pe- 
riod it  has  paid  all  the  ordinary  expenses  of  the  Government 
— paid  $10,000,000  of  public  debt  ;  and  if  the  ordinary  ex- 
penses of  the  Government  had  not  been  augmented,  during 
the  last  few  months,  would  have  left  $12,000,000  in  the 
treasury  ;  and  yet  it  is  a  most  oppressive  revenue  tariff ! 
Oh,  no  1  not  a  revenue  tariff;  but  a  most  oppressive  and  in- 
efficient system. 

We  hear  it  said  that  this  law  was  designed  for  protection 
alone.  No,  sir.  We  knew  it  would  yield  good  protection  ; 
but  we  passed  this  at  a  time  when  your  treasury  was  empty 
and  your  credit  gone.  We  passed  it  as  a  revenue  measure. 
Why,  I  often  hear  it  said,  that  this  tariff  of  1842  was  never 
designed  for  permanence — that  it  was  a  temporary  measure 
— that  it  was  forced  upon  us  by  the  necessities  of  the  times. 
Well,  is  not  that  tantamount  to  an  admission  that  it  was  a 
revenue  measure  ?  We  know  that  there  were  three  gentle- 
men who  voted  for  that  bill  on  that  ground,  and  without 
whose  votes  it  could  not  have  been  passed.  I  refer  to  a 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  now  in  high  station,  [Mr. 
Buchanan,]  a  gentleman  from  New  York,  also  in  high  sta- 
tion, [Mr.  Wright,]  and  my  colleague  at  the  time,  [Mr.  Wil- 
liams,] who  gave  as  their  reasons  for  voting  for  the  bill,  the 
necessitous  state  of  the  treasury.  Now  the  gentlemen  turn 
round  and  say  that  our  necessities  having  ceased,  the  law 
ought  to  cease  with  them.  How  can  they  pretend  that  it 
was  not  a  revenue  measure,  and  designed  as  such  ?  It  ia 
denounced  as  odious,  tyrannical,  and  oppressive,  although  it 
has  accomplished  every  thing  that  it  was  intended  to  ac- 
complish. 


374  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV 

But  the  repeal  of  the  British  corn  laws  is  to  produce  a 
great  increase  of  importations.  The  effect  on  the  exports  of 
American  agricultural  products  is  to  be  seen.  It  is  yet  to  be 
demonstrated  whether  we  were  not  better  off  before  the  re- 
pea'l  than  we  will  be  after.  Before  the  repeal,  we  exported 
agricultural  products  to  the  British  provinces  on  advanta- 
geous terms.  But  now  we  must  compete  with  the  corn 
growing  nations  of  Europe.  Why  has  corn  and  flour  declin- 
ed in  price  since  the  repeal  of  the  corn  laws  ?  How  are  the 
Illinois  farmers  better  off  when  flour  has  fallen  25  per  cent.? 
The  prospect  which  might  have  been  indulged  some  months 
since,  has  been  altogether  cut  off.  Does  not  every  body 
know  that  the  apprehended  scarcity  in  Great  Britain — a 
dreaded  famine — accounts  for  the  largely  increased  exporta- 
tion of  agricultural  products  from  the  United  States  ?  Is 
that  to  be  expected  from  year  to  year  ?  Are  calculations  to 
be  formed  on  the  constant  succession  of  years  of  scarcity  in 
Great  Britain  ?  England  will  continue  to  raise,  to  the  full- 
est possible  extent,  her  own  food.  Her  land  must  be  culti- 
vated. Prices  might  decline  by  reason  of  perfect  free  trade 
in  corn  :  but  British  crops,  would  be  grown,  sold  and  consum- 
ed, at  what  prices  they  would  command.  I  do  not  expect  to 
see  any  considerable  exportation  of  American  agricultural 
products  in  value  on  account  of  the  repeal  of  the  British  corn 
laws.  The  price  of  bread  in  England  will  fail,  and  so  will 
the  cost  of  labor.  Goods  also  will  fall  in  price,  and  thus  will 
the  duties  decline. 

Mr.  E.  replied  to  the  argument  against  specific  duties. 
They  are  a  sure  means  of  revenue.  The  yard  on  which  the 
specific  duty  is  imposed  may  decline  in  value  ;  but  the  duty 
remains  the  same.  If  the  value  declines  10  per  cent,  the 
consumer  will  the  more  cheerfully  pay  the  specific  duty, 
while  the  ad  valorem  duty  may  increase  as  the  consumer's 
ability  declines.  Check  consumption,  and  you  check  reve- 
nue. The  ad  valorem  principle,  as  was  properly  remarked  by 
the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts.  [Mr.  Webster,]  yester- 
day, has  never  been  practiced  by  any  nation  within  his 
knowledge.  The  free  trade  committee  of  the  British  House 
of  Commons  has  examined  a  great  mass  of  evidence,  but  not 
a  man  came  forward  to  advocate  the  ad  valorem  principle. 

;t  he  proceeded  to  speak  of  the  opportunities  of  fraud 
afforded  by  the  ad  valorem  system.  I  admit,  said  Mr.  E.,  that 
the  report  y  the  Senator  from  Alabama,  asserts  that 

no  frauds  had  taken  place  in  this  mode.     The  commissioners 


.84.6. J  DEBATE   IN  THE  SENATE.  375 

undertake  many  things  which  they  are  not  told  to  do.  The 
paper  read  is  signed  by  only  one  of  the  three  commissioners. 
Just  at  the  time  when  the  cases  of  fraud  were  pending1,  the 
commission  was  in  session  ;  but  the  commissioners  thought 
it  their  duty  to  go  off  in  the  effort  to  fasten  some  imputation 
upon  the  collector.  We  are  told,  "  There  was  never  a  clearer 
proved  case."  Why,  at  the  very  time  that  report  was  drawn 
up,  cases  embracing  half  a  million  of  dollars  were  pending  ! 
Arid  the  evidence  taken  by  the  courts  was  before  them.  But, 
said  the  commissioners,  that  evidence  was  not  taken  by  them, 
and  therefore  they  reported  that  there  was  no  fraud.  "  Oh  ! 
but  their  room  was  open,  and  any  body  might  come  in."  And 
who  came  in  ?  Why,  the  fraudulent  importers  themselves. 

Mr.  Lewis  asked  what  the  Senator  regarded  as  fraud  ?  He 
supposed  that  Mr.  Newbould  would  be  set  down  as  a  fraudu- 
lent importer. 

Mr.  Evans.  Oh,  no  !  He  never  ran  out  of  the  country, 
and  paid  $25,000  to  avoid  prosecution.  He  then  went  on  to 
speak  of  the  "Yorkshire  cases-"  of  fraud  at  New  York,  when 
the  commission  was  in  session.  One  of  the  cases  was  that 
of  Hood.  His  father,  in  England,  had  been  in  the  habit  of  send- 
ing fraudulent  invoices  to  him  till  he  became  alarmed,  and 
wrote  several  certainly  not  very  filial  letters  to  the  elder 
Hood,  calling  him  a  dunce  and  a  villain,  and  cautioning  him 
not  to  undervalue  his  invoices  more  than  25  or  30  per  cent., 
as  he  would  not  swear  to  any  greater  undervaluation.  Hood, 
the  father,  became  a  bankrupt,  and  his  papers,  with  these 
letters,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  assignees,  who,  being  honest 
men,  revealed  the  fraud  to  the  custom-house  authorities  in 
this  country.  Mr.  E.  mentioned  several  other  cases  of  fraudu- 
lent importers  who  had  fled  to  the  country  ;  one  of  whom  es- 
caped to  Canada,  and  after  remaining  there  for  some  time, 
succeeded  in  compromising  the  suit  by  paying  $25,000 — not 
half  as  much  as  he  ought  to  have  paid,  according  to  the  state- 
ment of  the  collector. 

Mr.  Cameron,  of  Pa.,  Democrat,  presented  a  memorial  from 
the  miners  and  other  laborers  of  Schuylkill  county,  asking 
that  the  duty  on  coal  might  not  be  reduced.  He  also  pre- 
sented the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  of  Democratic  citizens 
of  Sunbury,  expressing  their  opposition  to  the  bill  reducing 
the  duties  on  imports,  and  requesting  the  Senators  from  that 
State  to  oppose  its  passage.  A  panic,  he  said,  had  com- 
menced, and  was  spreading  through  the  Commonwealth.  It 
was  not  a  Whig  panic.  It  was  a  Democratic  panic.  The 


376  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  |Chap. xv 

county  in  which  the  meeting  was  held  was  a  Democratic 
county.'  Northampton  county,  another  Democratic  county, 
was  here  protesting1  against  the  passage  of  the  tariff  bill. 
They  feared  that  its  passage  would  destroy  their  business, 
prostrate  the  Democratic  party,  and  beggar  their  families. 
Good  "  old  Berks"  is  here  also  by  a  representation  of  her 
sons.  That  county  is  the  stronghold  of  Democracy.  Of  her 
10,000  votes,  she  often  gives  a -Democratic  majority  of  4,000. 
Her  citizens  are  a  stead}r,  industrious  people,  who  are  not 
easily  excited.  They  are  generally  agriculturists,  whose  in- 
dustry and  frugality  have  made  them  rich.  No  common  dan- 
ger would  alarm  them  ;  but  being  on  the  verge  of  the  great  coal- 
tield  of  Pennsylvania,  they  have  daily  evidence  of  the  com- 
fort and  happiness  its  mines  dispense  among  the  laborers 
and  mechanics  of  the  country  round  a.bout,  and  the  wealth 
which  it  has  sent  among  them  in  exchange  for  the  products 
of  their  farms.  The  citizens  of  Pennsylvania  were  willing  to 
work  for  their  living,  and  asked  to  be  let  alone. 

Mr.  Webster  said  :  Truly,  sir,  we  are  this  morning  in  a 
very  strange  conjuncture  of  circumstances.  The  electric 
telegraph  announces  from  Boston,  that  the  steamer  has 
brought  information  from  England,  and  among  the  last  words 
of  the  late  first  Minister  of  England,  was  the  declaration  that 
all  eyes  were  turned  to  see  how  the  United  States  would  ar- 
range the  new  tariff,  pointing  evidently  to  an  expectation  or 
a  hope  that  the  new  tariff,  to  which  all  the  English  eyes 
were  turned,  would  be  more  favorable  to  English  interests, 
and  English  business,  and  English  concerns,  than  the  tariff 
now  existing.  Somewhat  of  a  counter-blast  comes  from 
Pennsylvania.  All  eyes  are  turned  hither  from  Pennsylvania, 
not  to  see  how  we  may  modify  the  tariff  to  become  accepta- 
ble to  the  English  people,  but  to  see  whether  we  will  sacri- 
fice her  interests — her  great  and  leading  interests — and  the 
interests  of  other  portions  of  the  country  having  interests 
like  hers,  by  the  adoption  of  this  measure  so  much  com- 
mended already  in  Europe — so  much  the  subject  of  parlia- 
mentary recommendation.  Is  not  this,  sir,  as  I  said,  a  singu- 
lar conjuncture  of  affairs  ? 

I  happened  to  be  in  Pennsylvania  in  October,  1844,  in  di- 
vors  villages  and  counties.  I  saw  the  preparations  that  were 
going  on  for  the  then  approaching  elections  ;  and  it  ap- 
peared to  me  that  the  Democratic  party  in  Pennsylvania  had 
three  prominent,  eminent,  distinct  party  favorites.  These 
three  favorites  were  often  borne  on  their  flags  and  banners. 


1S46.]  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE  377 

I  saw  them  emblazoned  in  Chester  county,  and  in  Schuylkill 
county,  and  in  other  places.  The  three  favorites  borne  on 
these  banners,  were,  "  Polk/-  "Dallas,"  and  "  The  Tariff  of 
1842."  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  of  these  favorites,  the 
last  mentioned  is  at  this  present  moment  most  in  favor.  I 
would  ask  the  honorable  member  from  Pennsylvania  him- 
self, whether  he  has  not  seen  these  same  banners  floating  in 
various  places. 

Mr.  Cameron.  I  answer  the  Senator  with  great  pleasure. 
I  attended,  perhaps,  every  Democratic  meeting  within  my 
reach  in  that  State — and  some  of  them  were  at  places  one 
hundred  and  fifty  miles  distant  from  my  home — in  order  to 
support  the  great  cause  of  Democracy  ;  and  at  all  these 
meetings,  the  watchwords  and  the  mottoes  were,  "  Polk," 
"  Dallas,"  and  (before  his  lamented  death)  "  Muhlenburg," 
and  "  The  Tariff  of  1842."  And  after  the  death  of  our  candi- 
date for  the  gubernatorial  chair,  they  were,  "  Polk,"  "  Dallas," 
"Shunk,"and  "The  Tariff  of  1842."  Neither  of  the  three, 
sir,  would  have  got  the  vote  of  Pennsylvania  without  the  last 
— the  tariff  of  1842.  Much  as  we  disliked  Mr.  Clay,  and  sin- 
cerely as  we  were  attached  to  the  Democratic  party,  all  would 
have  o:one  for  him  before  we  would  have  relinquished  tho 
tariff  of  1842. 

Mr.  Niles,  of  Conn.,  Democrat,  said,  the  act  of  1842  had 
never  been  an  object  of  assault  on  the  part  of  the  Democracy 
of  the  North.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  the  object  of  defense. 
Certain  details  had  been  objected  to — some  of  its  provisions 
had  been  regarded  as  discriminating  unjustly  ;  but  these  ob- 
jections had  been  urged  chiefly  to  meet  the  extravagant  pre- 
tensions in  its  favor  set  up  on  the  other  side.  The  uniformity 
and  stability  of  the  operation  of  the  law  were  without  paral- 
lel. As  a  fiiend  of  the  Administration,  he  profoundly  regret- 
ted the  introduction  of  this  bill,  and  as  a  friend  of  the  Ad- 
ministration, he  would  vote  against  it.  First,  he  objected  to 
it  on  the  ground  of  its  introduction  at  the  present  time,  when 
the  nation  was  involved  in  the  expenses  of  a  war.  Next,  he 
objected  to  the  manner  in  which  the  bill  had  been  prepared 
and  introduced.  There  was  something  novel  in  that.  If  it. 
passed,  it  would  pass  against  the  judgment  of  a  majority  of 
the  Seriate.  A  sort  of  special  Congress — a  very  small  ^Con- 
gress — a  supplement  of  Congress,  composed  of  subordinate 
custom-house  officers,  had  been  convened  for  the  purpose  of 
arranging  the  details  of  the  bill.  He  had  gone  to  the  room 
of  the  Committee  of  Ways  affd  Means  of  the  other  House,  to 


373  THE  PROTECTIVE    SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV. 

attend  to  some  business  of  his  constituents,  and  there  found 
that  it  had  been  taken  possession  of  by  these  custom-house 
officers,  who  very  politely  told  him  that  they  would  look  into 
his  business.  He  complained  of  such  a  mode  of  manufactur- 
ing the  bill — a  bill  full  of  strange  crudities  and  conflicting 
provisions  and  principles. 

The  bill  was  the  creature  of  the  theory  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury — a  theory  founded  on  the  old  exploded  philo- 
sophy of  putting  forth  categories  and  bringing  your  facts 
within  them.  It  was  destitute  of  the  principle  of  incidental 
protection,  which  he  would  not  allow  to  slip  through  his 
lingers  by  any  hocus-pocus,  legerdemain,  treasury  management, 
or  any  other  sort  of  management.  He  would  frame  a  tariff 
law  the  same  as  he  would  any  other  law,  on  the  principles  of 
common  sense.  He  would  look  to  the  effect  of  the  law,  not 
only  on  the  treasury,  but  its  effect  incidentally,  collaterally, 
every  way.  He  would  make  it  productive  of  revenue,  and  at 
the  same  time  as  little  burdensome  and  as  highly  beneficial 
to  all  the  interests  of  the  country  as  possible. 

The  ad  valorem  principle  was  another  new  one  ;  and  he 
wished  to  know  why  it  was  so  pertinaciously  adhered  to. 
Was  there  any  other  reason,  except  it  was  the  favorite  ab- 
straction of  somebody,  though  universal  common  sense 
revolted  against  it  ?  He  showed  the  bad  operation  of  the  ad 
valorem  scheme,  instancing  the  articles  of  iron  and  mo- 
lasses. The  woolen  interest — soon  to  be  greater  than  the 
cotton — was  not  sufficiently  cared  for.  The  manufacture  of 
ready-made  clothing,  which  afforded  employment  to  so  many 
thousands  of  poor  females,  was  left  unprotected.  Manufac- 
tures of  iron  received  Irish  protection — protection  downwards. 
The  legislation  of  Great  Britain  enabled  her  manufacturers 
to  undersell  the  American.  The  British  manufacturer  got  his 
Swedish  iron  free  of  duty.  The  American  paid  30  per  'cent, 
for  it.  Great  Britain  legislated  on  the  principles  of  common 
sense,  not  on  theories  and  abstractions.  Such  was  the  way 
in  which  the  laborers  in  the  manufacture  of  iron  were 
treated. 

The  design  of  the  bill  was  an  attempt,  by  legislation,  to 
change  the  course  of  the  industry  of  the  country  ;  to  stimulate 
the  exportation  of  the  staples  of  the  country,  and  the  returns  ofimporta* 
ti&ns,  at  the  expense  of  all  the  domestic  industry  of  the  country — to  do 
what  ?  He  would  not  say  to  benefit  slave  labor.  lie  was 
there  to  defend  free  labor,  which  was  threatened  by  the  bill. 
It  seemed  to  be  intended  to  bring  society  back  to  the  primi- 


1846  J  DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  379 

tive  ages — to  confine  human  labor  to  the  production  of  the 
fruits  of  the  earth.  Even  if  wise,  if  consistent  with  the  in- 
telligence of  the  age,  would  it  be  just  thus  to  sacrifice  the 
interests  which  had  grown  up  and  taken  deep  root  in  the 
country,  which  demanded  protection,  and  which  would  have 
it  ?  All  history  proved,  that  no  nation  could  be  great  and 
flourishing  without  the  cultivation  of  the  arts,  employing  all 
the  industry  of  the  country.  It  was  such  diversified  industry 
that  had  made  England  and  France  what  they  were,  and 
which  even  now  gave  such  promise  of  the  future  greatness  of 
this  country. 

What  if  England  had  reduced  some  of  her  duties  ?  It  is 
generally  upon  such  articles  as  compose  her  export  trade. 
She  is  modifying  ;  we  ought  to  modify.  But  she  is  not  up- 
rooting. Her  legislation  is  always  based  on  knowledge,  not 
on  theoretical  speculations.  The,  true  policy  of  our  country  is  to 
increase  its  exports,  not  its  imports.  Mr.  N.  here  read  a  table 
showing  that  we  imported  more  largely  from  England  than 
any  country  in  Europe,  proportionally  resembling,  in  this  re- 
spect, one  of  her  colonies.  The  times  of  our  greatest  commer- 
cial difficulties  were  times  of  large  importations.  Why,  then, 
are  attempts  now  made  to  stimulate  importations  ?  Our  im- 
ports too  frequently  overrun  our  exports.  England,  as  seen  by 
a  table  to  which  Mr.  N.  referred,  always  sees  that  her  exports 
are  as  great,  and  generally  greater,  than  her  imports — in 
some  periods  nearly  double. 

He  felt  it  his  duty  to  say  something  on  the  political  aspect 
of  this  question.  The  party  to  which  he  belonged  had  tried 
to  make  it  a  party  measure.  He  had  always  believed  it 
wrong  to  connect  this  question  with  the  politics  of  the  coun- 
try. The  principle  of  this  bill  has  a  strong  Southern  squint 
- — a  squinting  towards  cotton  and  tobacco.  He  believed  this 
bill  opposed  to  the  principles  of  Democracy.  A  great  body 
of  the  Democracy  believe  in  discrimination  for  protection. 
Are.  we  to  be  robbed  of  our  principles  by  agreeing  with  the 
Secretary,  that  there  can  be  no  discrimination  for  protection  ? 
The  bill  was  hostile  to  the  Democracy  of  his  State,  and  to 
the  Democracy  of  the  North  generally.  He  had  gone  as  far 
as  any  man  could  go  with  a  safe  conscience.  Not  long1  ago 
we  had  a  public  man  who  had  accommodated  his  Northern 
principles  to  Southern  men  so  much,  that  he  had  been  called 
a  "  Northern  man  with  Southern  principles."  However  this 
might  be,  the  South  prevented  him  from  running  again.  The 
South,  whether  they  had  the  President  or  not,  always  had 


380  THE    PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XV. 

the  central  paper  to  manufacture  public  opinion — to  manufac- 
ture Democratic  sentiment. 

It  is  said  that  this  is  the  great  measure  of  the  age.  And 
we  are  called  upon,  for  this,  to  sacrifice  the  interests  of  our 
constituents.  It  appears  that  we  must  be  still  )iewers  oi 
wood  and  drawers  of  water  to  England  ;  and  this  is  tho 
great  measure  of  the  age.  He  had  raised  his  voice  early 
against  the  course  pursued  by  his  friends.  But  whether  he 
succeeded  in  arresting  the  measure  or  not,  he  felt  it  his  duty 
to  state,  that  there  was  at  least  one  on  this  side  of  the  chamber, 
who  could  not  be  whipped  in  to  support  any  such  measure. 
Why  is  this  bill  pressed  under  existing  circumstances  ?  It 
should  be  passed  over  to  the  next  Congress.  Let  the  people 
have  a  chance  to  pronounce  judgment  upon  it.  They  have 
not  had  that  opportunity.  He  felt  bound  by  the  people  of 
his  State  to  vote  against  it.  He  had  denied  the  right  of  in- 
struction ;  but  there  are  instructions,  (pointing  to  a  book 
before  him  containing  some  statistics  of  Connecticut  ;)  to 
these  instructions  he  would  adhere.  They  were  the  record 
of  the  interests  of  the  industry  of  his  State.  In  this  hour,  the 
people  of  his  State  expected  him  to  stand  by  them,  and  he 
would  not  fail. 

The  debate  was  continued  several  days,  during  which  time, 
memorials  from  several  counties  of  Pennsylvania  were  pre- 
sented by  Mr.  Cameron  remonstrating  against  the  passage  of 
the  bill  ;  and  several  amendments  were  proposed,  but  most 
of  them  were  rejected. 

Much  anxiety  was  felt  for  the  fate  of  the  bill  in  the  Senate, 
which  body  was  known  to  be  very  nearly  equally  divided. 
Mr.  Haywocd,  of  North  Carolina,  a  Democrat,  was  opposed 
to  the  tariff  of  1842,  as  too  highly  protective,  and  to  the  pre- 
sent bill,  as  insufficient  for  revenue.  Rather  than  separate 
himself  from  his  political  friends  by  voting  against  the  bill, 
he  resigned  his  seat. 

The  success  or  defeat  of  the  bill  was  now  supposed  to  de- 
pend upon  the  vote  of  Mr.  Jarnagin,  of  Tennessee.  He  was  a 
YTliicr,  and  was  opposed  to  the  bill ;  but  he  had  been  in- 
structed by  the  Legislature  of  his-  State  to  vote  for  the  re- 
peal of  the  act  of  1842  ;  and  he  felt  bound  to  obey  the  in- 
structions. To  insure  his  vote  and  the  votes  of  several  others, 
an  objectionable  provision  of  the  bill  was  removed,  and  the  bill 
was  passed,  28  to  27  ;  Mr.  Jarnagin  voting  in  the  affirmative. 
The  House  concurred  in  the  amendment ;  and  the  bill  be- 
came a  law 


tS46.j  VOTES  ON  THE  BILL.  33! 

The  vote,  by  States,  is  as  follows  :  The  names  of  Whigs 
voting  in  the  affirmative,  and  of  Democrats  voting  in  the 
negative,  are  in  Italics  : 

YEAS.  Maine:  Fairfield.  New  Hampshire:  Athevton.  New  York: 
Dix.  Dickinson.  Virginia:  Pennybacker.  South  Carolina:  Calhoun,  Mc- 
Duffie.  Georgia:  Colquit.t.  Tennessee:  Jarnaffin,Twney.  Ohio:  Allen. 
Indiana.'  Hannegan,  Bright.  Illinois:  Breese,  Semple.  Mississippi: 
Chalmers,  Speight.  Alabama:  Bagby,  Lewis.  Florida:  Weslcott,  Yu- 
lee.  Texas:  Houston,  Rusk.  Missouri:  Atchison,  Benton.  Arkansas: 
Ashley,  Sevier.  Michigan:  Cass. 

NAYS.  Maine:  Evans.  New  Hampshire :  Cilley.  Massachusetts:  Da- 
vis, Webster.  Vermont:  Phelps,  Upham.  Ehode  Island:  Greene.  Sim- 
mons. Connecticut :  Huntington,  Niles.  Neiv  Jersey :  Dayton,  Miller. 
Pennsylvania:  Cameron^  Sturgeon.  Delaware:  John  M.  Clayton,  Thomas 
Clayton.  Maryland:  Johnson,  Pearce.  Virginia:  Archer.  North  Caro- 
lina :  Mangum.  Georgia :  Berrien.  Louisiana :  Barrow.  Johnson.  Ken- 
tucky :  Criitenden,  Morehead.  Ohio:  Corwin.  Michigan:  Woodbridge. 

The  vote  in  the  House  of  Representatives  was  as  follows  : 
Maine:  Yeas,  6;  nay,  1.  New  Hampshire:  Yeas,  3.  Massacliuseits: 
Nays,  9.  Rhode  Inland :  Nays,  2.  Connecticut :  Nays,  4.  Vermont :  Nays, 
3.  New  York :  Yeas,  15 ;  nays,  16.  New  Jersey :  Nays,  5.  Perintylvor 
ilia:  Yea,  1;  nays,  23.  Delaware:  Nay,  1.  Maryland:  Yea,  1 ;  nays,  2 
Virginia  :  Yeas.  14  ;  nay,  1.  North  Carolina:  Yeas,  6  ;  navs,  3.  South 
Carolina:  Yeas,  7.  Georgia  :  Yeas,  6  ;  nays,  2.  Alabama:  Yeas,  7.  Mis- 
sissippi: Yeas,  4.  Louisania:Yen.s,B't  nays,  I.  Florida:  Yea,  1.  Texas: 
Yeas,  2.  Missouri :  Yeas,  4.  Tennessee  :  Yeas,  6 ;  nays,  5.  Kentucky  : 
Yeas,  3 ;  nays,  7.  Ohio  :  Yeas,  12 ;  nays,  8.  Indiana  :  Yeas,  5  ;  nays,  2. 
Illinois  :  Yeas,  5-  Michigan :  Yeas,  3. 

Total  yeas,  114  :     Democrats,  113  ;  Whig,  1,  (of  Alabama.) 

Total   nays,   95  :     Whigs,   tl  ;    Democrats,    18  ;    Native 

Americans,  6.     Of  the  18  Democrats,  there  were  from  New 

York,  4  ;    New  Jersey,  2  ;    Pennsylvania,  11  ;    Maryland,  1. 

Natives,  New  York,  4  ;  Pennsylvania,  2, 


382  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTIM.  f Chap.  XVI. 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

Effects  of  the  tariff  act  of  1846.  Remarks  of  the  American  newspaper  press.  Re. 
marks  of  the  British  press.  Mr.  Webster's  Speech.  Benjamin  Marshall's  let- 
ter on  the  importation  of  goods.  Effects  of  the  tariff  on  trade  and  the  revenue. 
A  modification  of  the  tariff  recommended  by  President  Buchanan.  Meeting  of 
the  friends  of  National  Industry  in  Philadelphia, 

FROM  the  representations,  in  the  foregoing  debate,  of  the  na- 
ture of  the  tariff  of  1846,  the  reader  may  be  disposed  to  in- 
quire into  its  operation.  Were  the  hopes  of  its  advocates 
realized  ?  or  were  the  apprehensions  of  its  opponents  well- 
founded  ?  It  will  be  the  object  of  this  short  Chapter  to  pre- 
sent some  facts  indicating  answers  to  these  questions. 

We  have  shown  how  accurate  were  the  previous  esti- 
mates of  the  amount  of  revenue  produced  by  the  tariff  of  1842, 
as  well  as  of  the  amount  required  to  meet  the  wants  of  the 
Government.  The  friends  of  that  act  anticipated,  as  a  con- 
sequence of  the  proposed  reduction  of  duties,  a  corresponding 
reduction  of  revenue,  unless,  indeed,  the  importations  should 
be  unduly  increased.  Tt  was  apprehended,  also,  that  it  would 
have  an  unfavorable  effect  upon  many  branches  of  the  manu- 
facturing interest,  and  prove  detrimental  to  the  general  in- 
dustry of  the  country. 

The  effects  of  this  bill  appeared,  even  before  it  became  a 
law.  A  material  decline  in  the  prices  of  certain  articles,  es- 
pecially wool  and  pig  iron,  was  experienced  in  different  parts 
of  the  country,  immediately  on  receipt  of  the  intelligence  of 
its  having  passed  the  House,  while  it  was  yet  pending  in  the 
Senate.  Its  final  passage  caused  great  excitement ;  and 
feelings  of  indignation  found  utterance  through  the  press  of 
both  political  parties. 

The  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer,  though  opposed  to 
the  tariff  of  1842,  reprobated  the  passage  of  this  law.  Among 
the  effects  which  it  enumerated,  were  the  following  :  "The 
country  will  be  flooded  with  foreign  goods  imported  under 
false  invoices  ;  many  manufactories  will  be  stopped,  and 
others  will  work  at  half  price  ;  the  home  market  now  being 
built  up  will  be  injured  ;  ruinously  low  prices  of  agricultural 


i846.]  EFFECTS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  383 

products  will  follow  ;  the  day  laborer  will  be  required 
work  for  reduced  wages.  The  consequence  of  such  excessive 
importations  will  cause  a  balance  of  trade  ag-ainst  us  exceed 
ing  the  amount  of  specie  in  the  country  the  next  year,  [1847,] 
which  must  be  sent  abroad,  followed  perhaps  by  a  derange- 
ment of  our  monetary  system."  "Yvcui  Ct  *yvu.(AO>  * 

The  New  York  Tribune,  in  its  review  of  the  act,  said  : 
"  What  can  you  say,  then,  of  taxing  all  wool  30  per  cent, 
and  letting  it  in  manufactured  into  woolen  or  worsted  yarn, 
flannels,  bookings  or  baizes,  at  25  ?  wool  hats  or  hat  bodies, 
or  any  kind  of  blankets,  at  20  ?  Did  mortal  man  ever  in- 
vent or  imagine  a  system  of  political  economy  under  which 
such  legislation  as  this  can  be  justified?  Rummage  your 
Adam  Smiths  and  McCullochs,  Messrs.  Free  Traders,  and  tell 
us  what  you  can  find  that  will  palliate  such  direct  legislation 
against  long  established  and  important  home  interests,  and 
in  favor  of  their  foreign  rivals  ?  There  are  millions  of  Ameri- 
can property  invested  in  the  branches  of  industry  here  struck 
at  ;  there  are  thousands  of  our  people  who  live  by  working 
at  these  branches.  The  raw  material  of  blankets  is  generally 
cheap,  coarse  wool,  which  both  British  and  American  manu- 
facturers obtain  from  South  America.  The  former  pay  no 
duty  on  their  wool,  and  but  20  per  cent,  on  bringing  their 
fabrics  into  market ;  the  latter  must  pay  30  per  cent,  on  his 
raw  material  before  he  begins  to  manufacture.  Will  any  one 
attempt  to  justify  this  ? 

"  Those  who  fancy  the  passage  of  this  bill  will  damage 
New  England  especially,  are  grievously  mistaken.  It  will 
injure  some  branches  of  Eastern  manufactures,  but  fall  with 
far  greater  severity  on  the  younger  and  less  hardy  enter- 
prises of  other  sections.  New  England  will  buy  her  iron, 
her  coal,  her  steel,  cheaper  than  she  has  done.  Great  Britain 
and  Nova  Scotia  will  profit  by  the  change  at  the  expense  of 
Pennsylvania.  The  woolen  manufacture  must  suffer,  and  the 
wool  grower  must  suffer  with  it.  Printing  cottons  will  bo 
shaken. 

"  We  apprehend  a  reduction  of  the  wages  of  manufactur- 
ing labor,  but  trust  it  will  be  averted  if  possible.  We  do 
not  doubt  that  the  capital  now  embarked  in  manufactures 
will  generally  take  care  of  itself,  either  in  prosecuting  those 
enterprises,  or  in  some  other  undertakings.  But  the  new 
States  have  punished  themselves  far  more  seriously  than  they 
have  New  England.  They  need  manufactures  to  furnish 
markets  for  their  vast  agricultural  surplus,  and  enable  them 


384  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVI 

to  give  a  more  profitable  direction  to  their  industry  than  the 
production  of  grain  and  meat  for  distant  consumption.  Thia 
want  had  begun  to  be  supplied  under  the  present  tariff,  and 
would  have  been  more  generally  and  rapidly,  but  for  appre- 
hensions of  its  repeal.  Every  machine  shop  in  the  Union  has 
been  as  full  of  work  as  it  could  desire,  for  three  years  past ; 
and  at  this  moment  a  single  establishment  in  this  State  has 
orders  for  $300,000  worth  of  manufacturing  machinery,  en- 
tirely for  the  South  and  West.  Does  any  one  believe  it  will 
have  half  so  much  work  on  hand  at  this  time  next  year  ?" 

The  American  (Phil.)  Sentinel,  a  Democratic  journal,  after 
the  bill  had  passed  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  while 
it  was  pending  in  the  Senate,  said  :  "  Such,  indeed,  was  the 
universal  distress  prior  to  the  act  of  1842,  that  Congress  had 
to  pass  a  bankrupt  act  to  extricate  thousands  of  debtors  from 
the   embarrassing  difficulties   that   surrounded    them.     We 
want  no  more  bankrupt  acts.     We  wish  everybody  in  this 
great  Commonwealth  to  have   full   employment,  which  can 
only  be  the  case  when  we  encourage  home  industry. 
s/     "  That  the  tariff  of  1842  has  proved  a  blessing  to  this  coun- 
/  try,  it  is  only  necessary  to  advert  to  our  national  credit  at 
home  and  abroad,  ever  since  its  enactment.     See,  too,  how 
the  people  have  prospered  since  that  time.     Why  shall  mem- 
bers of  Congress  shut  their  eyes  to  the  experience  that  we 
i     have  been  so  recently  taught  on  this   interesting  question  ?" 

Meetings  of  Democrats  were  held  in  several  places  in  that 
State,  and  delegations  appointed  to  proceed  to  Washington 
with  remonstrances  to  the  Senate,  protesting  against  the 
passage  of  the  bill. 

The  New  York  Courier,  in  an  article  on  "  iron  and  the  new 
tariff,"  published  a  table  comparing  the  duties  on  some  thirty 
descriptions  of  iron  and  iron  manufactures,  of  the  coarse? 
kinds,  under  the  tariff  of  1842,  with  the  duty  to  which  they 
were  subject  under  the  new  tariff  ;  and  then  remarked  :  "  The 
rates  of  duties  upon  these  articles,  [they  were  all  specific 
duties,]  computed  ad  valorem,  vary  from  36  to  168  per  cent., 
in  the  tariff  of  1842  ;  and  it  is  well  known  these  rates  were 
as  rapidly  building  up  the  iron  interests  of  this  country,  as 
the  cotton  and  woolen  interests  had  been  built  up.  Under 
them,  in  live  years  more,  we  should  have  been  able  to  manu- 
facture at  home,  all  the  iron  and  iron  manufactured  articles 
necessary  for  home  consumption,  at  prices  as  cheap  or  cheap- 
er than  they  could  be  bought  at  abroad.  This  new  tariff  it 
will  be  seen,  must  create  an  entire  revolution  in  the  trade." 


1846.J  EFFECTS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  335 

The  Philadelphia  United  States  Gazette,  said  :  "  It  is 
stated  that  the  wages  of  the  laborers  in  the  mining  districts 
of  this  State  will  be  reduced  one-half,  when  the  new  tariff 
comes  into  operation,  in  order  that  something  like  a  competi- 
tion with  the  coal  mines  of  Pictou  and  elsewhere  Aiav  bo 
maintained." 

Thr>  Cumberland  (Maryland)  Civilian  said  :  "  We  regret 
to  learn  that  the  Lonaconing  Company  has  suspended  opera- 
tions and  discharged  the  hands." 

A  large  number  of  woolen  and  iron  manufactories  were 
very  soon  adversely  affected.  Some  were  suspended  ;  others 
discharged  a  part  of  their  hands  ;  and  others  reduced  the 
wages  of  operatives. 

The  bill  had  been  saved  by  Vice-President  Dallas,  by 
whose  casting  vote  it  was  ordered  to  its  third  reading  in  the 
Senate.  Upon  this  the  i  hiladelphia  Sentinel  remarked  :  "  The 
news  of  the  passage  of  the  tariff  bill  by  the  Senate  was  re- 
ceived in  this  city  by  telegraph  yesterday,  and  caused  the 
most  intense  excitement.  There  was  one  burst  of  indigna- 
tion that  Pennsylvania  had  been  grossly  deceived,  and  that 
her  best  interests  had  been  prostrated,  too,  by  the  vote  of 
George  Mifflin  Dallas,  one  of  her  own  sons,  whom  she  has 
fostered  and  cherished  for  years,  and  who,  she  had  a  right  to 
expect,  would  stand  by  her  in  the  hour  of  trial.  Mr.  Dallas 
has  thrown  the  weight  of  his  influence  into  the  Southern 
scale  against  his  native  State.  We  are  sorry  that  we  have 
to  record  this  deed  of  deep  ingratitude  to  the  old  Keystone 
State.  If  Mr.  Dallas  had,  by  the  remotest  hint,  given  the  peo- 
ple of  Pennsylvania,  in  the  campaign  of  1844,  to  believe  that 
he  would  go  with  the  South  for  a  Southern  tariff,  ho  would 
not  have  been  elected  Vice-President." 

The  Springfield  Republican  said  :  "  We   understand   that 
the  Carpet  Company  at  Thompsonville,  Conn.,  yesterday  re-  \ 
duced  the  wages  of  their  workmen   25  per  cent.,  in  view  of 
the  effect  which  the  new  tariff  will  immediately  have  upon 
their  business.     Weavers  who  have  recejved  24  to  24J  cents  , 
a  yard,  will  now  get  but  18  for  the  same  work." 

The  Washington  correspondent  of  the  Charleston  Mercury, 
said,  in  relation  to  the  passage  of  the  new  tariff  bill  :  "  Tho 
tactics  of  the  Democrats  were  admirable  ;  and  to  no  one  is  ^ 
due  more  than  to  the  venerable  editor  of  the  Union.  Old 
Blr.cher  coming  in  the  nick  of  time,  as  he  did  on  the  fatal 
field  of  Waterloo,  was  not  more  decisive  of  victory  than  the 
editorial  article  in  the  Union,  shooting  Brinkerhoff  as  a  de- 

17 


n 


386  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVI. 

serter,  and  driving  back  the  Ohio  Democrats  to  their  duty. 
I  repeat  to  you,  it  was  that  article  which  secured  the  victory. 
It  made  its  appearance  in  an  opportune  moment,  and  was 
successful  ;  and  to  the  Napoleon  of  the  press  rightfully  be- 
longs the  victory." 

The  New  York  Express  said  :  "  The  tariff,  more  or  less, 
occupies  the  attention  of  all  the  presses.  Wherever  the 
I  \  news  goes,  it  sounds  a  death  knell  in  the  ear  of  industry  and 
» '  enterprise.  No  sadder  news,  for  many  a  year,  has  reached 
many  branches  of  labor  ;  and  the  outcry  therefore  is  gen- 
eral." 

The  Baltimore  American  said  :  "  A  reduction  of  the  prices 
of  labor  is  one  of  the  inevitable  effects  of  the  repeal  of  the 
American  tariff  act  of  1842,  and  the  substitution  of  McKay's 
British  tariff  bill.  The  latter  deliberately  takes  away  the 
sure  protection  to  American  labor  which  the  act  of  1842 
had  so  happily  and  wisely  thrown  around  it  ;  and  the  hard- 
handed  industry  of  our  country  is  left  to  sustain  itself  as  it 
can  against  the  half  fed  labor  of  Europe.  Although  the  '  Brit- 
ish bill'  does  not  go  into  operation  until  the  first  of  December 
next,  it  has  already  affected  the  price  of  various  articles. 
Among  the  most  prominent  of  these  is  iron.  We  learn  that 
Eastern  manufacturers,  who  have  heretofore  been  extensive 
buyers  in  this  market  of  pig  iron  at  $30  to  $32  per  tun,  are 
now  offering  but  $25  for  the  same  article.  No  definite  price, 
it  is  true,  has  been  yet  agreed  upon  ;  but  it  is  clear  that  a 
material  reduction  must  be  submitted  to.  We  further  learn 
that,  in  view  of  this  condition  of  things,  and  the  clouded 
prospects  ahead,  the  proprietors  of  all  the  iron  works  in  and 
about  Baltimore,  have  reduced  the  wages  of  their  workmen 
25  per  cent.  These  works  give  employment  to  about  2,000 
men,  whose  labor,  literally  the  sweat  of  the  brow,  is  thus  re- 
duced in  value  by  the  reckless  folly  of  the  party  in  pow.jr.'' 

A  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  said  :  "  Four- 
teen calico  printers  from  Robeson's  print  works  at  Fall  Riv- 
er and  Providence,  R.  I.,  have  already  left  for  Europe  to  ob- 
tain work.7' 

These   arc  but  a  small  portion  of  the  articles  which  ap- 

.red  in  the  public  newspapers  within  a  few  weeks  after 
the  passage  of  the  tariff  act  of  1846,  and  several  months  be- 
fore the  act  was  to  go'  into  effect.  Manufacturers  were  un- 
willing to  hazard  their  capital  by  continuing  the  production 
of  goods  which  were  destined  soon  to  meet  the  foreign  in 
our  market 


< 


1S46.]  EFFECTS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  387 

It  is  not  strange,  that  what  produced  such  effects  in  this 
country  should  cause  rejoicing  abroad.  English  papers  abound- 
ed with  articles  headed  in  conspicuous  type,  "  Progress  of  Free 
Trade  !"  "  Eesponse  from  the  United  States  !"  "  The  mono- 
polists floored  !"  &c.  Said  one  : 

"  The  Independence  packet  ship,  which  has  so  often  brought 
important  intelligence  from  the  United  States,  has  arrived  in 
this  port,  bringing  the  best  piece  of  news  she  has  ever  con- 
veyed to  this  country,  namely,  that  of  the  passage  of  the  new 
and  liberal  tariff  of  duties  on  imports  founded  on  Mr.  Walker's 
report,  through  the  American  House  of  itepresentatives,  by  a 
majority  of  114  to  95  votes." 

The  London  Times  said:  "Henceforth  the  principle  of 
duties  for  protection  must  be  considered  as  abandoned  in  the  \ 
United  States.  The  duties  which  remain,  insufficient  to  comptn- 
sate  the  objects  of  protection,  are  quite  high  enough  to  insure  a 
revenue  to  the  State.  The  alteration  in  the  American  tariff 
can  not  but  be  regarded  as  a  great  triumph  gained  by  the 
principles  of  free  trade." 

A  Liverpool  paper  spoke  of  the  new  tariff  thus  :  "  It  is 
almost  impossible  to  overrate  the  effect  it  will  have  upon  the 
manufacturing  industry  of  this  country,  [England,]  when  we 
take  into  consideration,  that,  in  spite  of  the  previous  almost 
prohibitory  tariff,  the  United  States  have  been  the  most  im- 
portant outlet  for  our  manufactures  for  many  years  past. 
The  reduction  of  duties  on  cotton  and  woolen  manufactures, 
will  give  a  great  impulse  to  these  branches  which  have  been 
suffering  to  some  extent  for  want  of  a  remunerative  foreign 
market  for  their  surplus  production.  But  the  interest  which 
will  be  most  materially  benefited,  is  the  iron  manufacture  of 
this  country,  which  will  be  apparent  from  the  comparative 
rate  of  duties  under  the  old  tariff  and  the  present.  It  is  ex- 
pected that  the  price  of  pig  iron  will  rise  10s.  per  tun,  and 
bar  iron  20s.  per  tun." 

Another  said  :  "  The  general  effect  must  be  to  increase 
the  value  of  the  American  market  to  the  British  manufacturer, 
whilst  it  may  arrest  the  progress  of  the  people  of  the  Eastern 
States  in  manufacturing  skill,  notwithstanding  the  large 


gin  of  protection  still  left  them."  >* 

A  Montreal  paper  said  :   "  It  will  open  an  immense  market 

for  us,  but  if  we  were  Americans,  we   should  certainly  be    j 

tariff  men." 

Iron  and  woolen  manufactures  were  represented  by  several 

English   papers  as  advanced  in  price,  and  as  firm  and  im- 

proving. 


888  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM  [Chap  XVL 

Some  of  the  features  of  the  bill  which  were  deemed  most 
objectionable  to  the  friends  of  protection,  and  from  which 
they  apprehended  its  unfavorable  operation,  will  be  here 
noticed.  Some  of  them  were  ably  exposed  by  Mr.  Webster 
ID  an  elaborate  speech  in  the  discussion  cf  the  bill. 

1.  The  abolition  of  all  specific  duties,  and  the  adoption 
throughout  of  the  ad  valorem  principle.  In  favor  of  specific 
duties,  Mr.  W.  cited  the  then  Secretary  of  State,  [Mr.  Bu- 
chanan,] who,  in  the  debate  on  the  tariff  bill  of  1842,  had 
declared  his  opposition  to  "  all  ad  valorem,  duties  whatever, 
except  where,  from  the  nature  of  the  article  imported,  it  is 
not  possible  to  subject  it  to  a  specific  duty.  Our  own  severe 
experience,"  he  said,  "  has  taught  us  a  lesson  on  this  subject 
which  we  ought  not  soon  to  forget.  Our  ad  valorem  duties 
have  produced  great  frauds  upon  the  revenue,  while  they 
have  driven  the  regular  American  merchant  from  the  business 
of  importing,  and  placed  it  almost  exclusively  in  the  hands 
of  the  agents  of  British  manufacturers." 

Mr.  Crawford,  while  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  having 
recommended  various  new  provisions  for  preventing  frauds, 
said  :  "  Whatever  might  be  the  reliance  which  ought  to  be 
placed  in  the  efficiency  of  the  foregoing  provisions,  it  is  cer- 
tainly prudent  to  diminish,  as  far  as  practicable,  the  list  of 
articles  paying  ad  valorem  duties." 

Again,  the  next  year  :  "The  certainty  with  which  specific 
duties  are  collected,  gives  them  a  decided  advantage  over 
duties  laid  upon  the  value  of  the  article.  It  is  probable  that 
the  most  important  change  which  can  be  made  in  the  system 
will  be  the  substitution  of  specific  for  ad  valorem  duties  upon 
all  articles  susceptible  of  that  change." 

Among  a  number  of  cases  of  fraud,  recited  by  Mr.  W.,  he 
read  a,  letter  from  Benjamin  Marshall,  written  a  few  days 
previously,  in  which  he  said  :  "  My  brother  and  myself  were 
brought  up  in  the  town  of  Manchester,  [England,]  and  were 
well  acquainted  with  the  manufacturers  and  manufacturing. 
At  the  age  of  twenty  years,  it  appeared  very  evident  to  me, 
that  we  could  finish  goods  and  import  goods  into  New  York 
about  10  per  cent,  lower  than  the  American  merchant  ;  and 
with  this  conviction  I  agreed  to  come  out  to  New  York  and 
dispose  of  the  goods,  and  leave  my  brother  to  finish  and  for- 
ward the  goods. 

"  The  result  was  equal  to  our  expectations.  We  imported 
our  goods  10  per  cent,  cheaper  than  our  competitors,  and  by 
the  ad  valorem  duties  we  paid  nearly  5  per  cent,  less  duties  : 


1846. J  WEBSTER'S  SPEECH  ON  THE  BILL.  389 

so  that,  in  twenty-two  years,  we  made  nearly  a  million  of  dol- 
lars, whilst  nearly  all  the  American  merchants  failed.  .  .  . 
I  can  not  avoid  expressing  my  decided  opinion  in  favor  of 
specific  duties,  as  then  the  foreign  manufacturer  would  pay 
the  same  duties  as  the  American  importer." 

2.  Another  objection  was,  that  several  interests  would  not 
be  sufficiently  protected.  Some,  indeed,  seemed  to  be  pur- 
posely legislated  against.  To  the  foreign  manufacturer  ol 
hemp  goods,  the  bill,  in  effect,  granted  a  bounty  of  20  to  25 
per  cent.  It  imposed  a  duty  of  5  pel.*  cent,  more  on  unmanu- 
factured hemp  than  on  cordage.  This,  together  with  the 
difference  of  foreign  shipping  charges,  and  the  difference  of 
freight — more  being  charged  on  hemp  on  account  of  its  bulk 
than  on  cordage — would  give  the  foreign  manufacturer  an 
advantage  of  about  25  per  cent. 

Copper,  raw,  or  unmanufactured,  wras  subject  to  duty,  while 
copper  sheathing  was  to  be  let  in  free,  as  if  the  intention  was 
to  prevent  the  manufacture  in  this  country.  Hence,  much  of 
the  copper  we  got  from  Chili,  would  now  be  sent  to  England, 
manufactured  into  sheathing,  and  then  sent  to  the  United 
States,  thus  also  giving  to  English  vessels  the  benefit  of  the 
transportation. 

Upon  linseed  oil,  the  bill  would  probably  have  a  similar 
effect.  England,  it  was  shown,  imported  3|  million  bushels 
of  seed  annually,  free  of  duty,  and  imposed  a  prohibitory  duty 
on  the  oil.  The  duty,  which,  by  our  act  of  1842,  was  25  cents 
a  gallon  on  oil,  was  now  proposed  to  be  reduced  to  20  per 
cent,  or  only  about  7  cents  a  gallon.  The  British  manufac- 
turer, besides,  had  the  advantage  of  cheaper  labor,  and  got 
double  the  price  for  his  oil  cake  that  ours  did. 

Sulphuric  acid,  or  oil  of  vitriol,  used  extensively  in  certain 
manufactures,  was  to  be  subject  to  a  duty  of  only  10  per.  cent, 
while  other  acids  were  charged  20  per  cent.,  as  if  to  crush 
the  manufacture  of  the  article  in  this  country,  for  which  ex- 
tensive works  had  been  erected. 

Brimstone,  used  for  making  gunpowder  and  for  other  pur- 
poses, was  admitted  in  its  crude  state,  free  of  duty,  by  the 
act  of  1842  :  and  the  refined  article  was  charged  with  a  duty 
of  25  per  cent.  The  new  bill  reduced  the  duty  on  refined 
brimstone  to  20  per  cent.,  and  laid  a  duty  on  the  crude  of  15 
per  cent.,  making  a  difference  of  only  5  per  cent.  The  brim- 
stone for  our  powder  had  been  imported  from  Europe,  chiefly 
from  France  and  England,  and  the  price  was  about  $75  a 
tun.  The  manufacture  had  been  commenced  in  this  country 


390  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVI 

only  about  four  years  previously,  and  the  price  had  been  re- 
duced to  less  than  $40  a  tun. 

The  taxing  of  imported  wool  of  all  kinds  30  per  cent.,  and 
admitting  it  manufactured  into  certain  articles  at  25  and  20 
per  cent.,  has  been  already  noticed. 

But  among  the  most  important  interests  to  be  affected  by 
the  bill,  was  that  of  iron  and  coal.  The  duty  on  plain  bar 
iron,  was,  by  the  law  of  1842,  $25  per  tun.  The  proposed 
duty  was  30  per  cent.,  which,  the  price  of  iron  being  then 
about  $40  per  tun  in  Liverpool,  would  be  but  $12  a  tun.  The 
bill  placed  the  ore,  the  bar  iron,  and  the  manufactures  of  iron, 
down  to  penknives  and  needles,  all  on  the  same  level,  30  per 
cent.,  making  no  discrimination  in  favor  of  the  manufactured 
articles. 

Mr.  Webster  mentioned  several  other  obnoxious  provi- 
sions in  the  bill,  which  we  are  obliged  to  pass  over  without 
notice. 

It  had  been  urged,  by  some,  as  an  objection  to  the  bill, 
that  a  reduction  of  duties  would  cause  a  diminution  of  the 
revenue.  The  revenue,  however,  was  materially  increas- 
ed, in  consequence  of  the  large  increase  of  importations. 
This  increase  of  revenue  was  triumphantly  referred  to  as 
commending  the  sagacity  and  wisdom  of  the  projectors  of 
the  new  tariff.  And  as  further  evidence  of  the  policy  of  the 
measure,  it  was  said,  that  "  the  most  important  part  of  the 
whole  result  was,  that  the  exports  had  increased  at  a  corres- 
ponding rate  ;  thus  verifying  the  theory  of  the  Secretary, 
that  the  exports  would  equal  our  imports." 

It  was",  on  the  other  hand,  admitted,  that  a  tariff,  construct- 
ed with  the  express  view  of  raising  the  greatest  possible 
amount  of  revenue,  could  be  made  to  produce  more  money 
than  a  tariff  designed  also  to  promote  other  national  inter- 
ests. Niles'  Register  remarked  :  "  It  was  from  no  apprehen- 
sion that  the  tariff  of  1846  would  produce  a  less  amount  of 
revenue  than  the  tariff  of  1842,  that  we  preferred  the  latter, 
On  the  contrary,  our  apprehension,  as  repeatedly  expressed, 
was,  that  the  reduction  of  duties  by  the  tariff  of  1846  would 
induce  such  immense  importations  of  foreign  goods,  that,  to 
pay  for  those  goods,  the  people  of  the  country,  after  sending 
their  usual  exports,  would  find  it  necessary  to  send  their  spe- 
cie also  ;  and  when  that  was  gone,  their  credit  would  bo 
stretched  to  the  utmost  to  make  up  the  balance  of  trade 
against  us  ;  and  when  thus  both  our  specie  and  our  credit 
became  exhausted,  as  it  inevitably  would  be,  then  the  peo- 


1648.]  EFFECTS  OF  THE  TARIFF.  391 

pie  would  begin  to  realize  the  real  operation  of  the  tariff  of 
1846. 

"  In  proportion  as  the  statement  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  is  gratifying  to  those  who  control  the  public  treas- 
ury, it  becomes,  when  duly  examined,  startling  to  the  people. 
While  the  Secretary  is  exulting  at  the  prospect  of  obtaining 
over  $45,000,000  from  duties  on  importations  during  the  first 
twelve  months'  operation  of  his  revenue  tariff,  it  would  be 
well  for  the  people  to  carry  out  the  calculation,  and  ascertain 
how  much  they  will  have  to  pay  to  foreigners  for  the  goods 
which,  at  such  low  duties,  produce  to  the  Government  such 
an  enormous  amount  of  money." 

It  was  estimated  that  it  would  require  the  importation  of 
goods  to  the  amount  of  $150,000,000  to  raise  a  revenue  of 
$45,000,000.  This,  besides  the  large  amount  imported  free 
of  duty,  and  cost  of  collection,  making  in  all  about  $200,000,- 
000,  was  thought  to  be  a  startling  amount  for  the  people  to 
pay  for  foreign  importations  under  the  first  year  of  the  tar- 
iff of  1846. 

The  boasted  amount  of  exports  was  caused  by  the  famine 
in  Europe,  especially  in  Ireland.  The  total  amount  of  bread- 
stuffs  exported  in  1847,  was  upwards  of  $68,000,000  ;  an 
amount  more  than  double  that  of  the  average  of  the  five  suc- 
ceeding years.  The  amount  of  specie  imported  that  year,  was 
about  $24,000,000,  the  greater  portion  of  it  for  bread-stuffs 
sent  to  Europe. 

In  1848,  the  effects  of  the  tariff  of  1846  were  clearly  seen 
in  the  commercial  and  financial  state  of  the  country.  By 
the  excessive  importation  of  foreign  goods  induced  by  the 
low  duties,  the  greater  portion  of  the  specie  imported  the 
preceding  year,  had  been  taken  out  of  the  country  ;  and  this 
exportation  of  specie  produced  a  pressure  upon  the  money 
market,  attended  by  a  reduction  in  the  prices  of  merchandise 
and  produce,  and  embarrassment  and  stagnation  in  trade  and 
manufactures.  Iron  establishments  which  had  been  put  in 
operation  under  the  tariff  of  1842,  were  discontinued.  Es- 
tablishments for  manufacturing  woolens  and  cottons,  brought 
(  *  little  or  no  return  for  their  capital,  and  a  reduction  of  wages 
\N--ensued.  Kentucky  cotton  bagging  had  been  sadly  interfered 
with  by  the  East  India  gunny  cloth,  of  which  at  least  twenty 
cargoes  were  said  to  have  been  imported  within  the  last  pre- 
ceding year.  And  it  appeared  from  a  British  Shipping  List, 
that  49,000,000  yards  of  plain  cottons  had  been  shipped  from 
Great  Britain  to  the  United  States  in  1847,  against  9,000,000, 


392  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVI. 

12,000,000,  and  10,000.000  for  the  three  preceding-  years  : 
and  40,000,000  yards  of  printed  and  dyed  cottons,  in  1847, 
against  12,000,000,  13,000,000,  and  13,500,000  for  the  three 
preceding  years.  This  result  as  to  printed  cottons,  it  may 
be  remarked,  had  been  specifically  predicted  on  the  passage 
of  the  act  of  1846. 

Importations  continued  to  increase,  until,  in  1854,  they  ex- 
ceeded $304,000,000,  largely  exceeding  our  exports,  and  yield- 
ing a  revenue  of  more  than  $64,000,000.  In  1857,  the  revul- 
sion came — a  result  predicted  for  years,  but  delayed,  as  is 
presumed,  by  the  discovery  of  the  California  gold  mines.  By 
the  products  of  these  mines,  and  a  large  amount  of  our  rail- 
road and  other  stocks,  sold  in  England,  the  annual  balance 
of  trade  had  been  measurably  kept  down,  and  the  anticipated 
commercial  and  financial  crisis  deferred. 

The  annual  expenditures  had  been  increased  to  a  sum  ex- 
ceeding the  revenues  ;  so  that  a  resort  to  loans  had  become 
necessary  to  supply  the  deficiency.  A  large  public  debt  hav- 
ing accrued,  which  the  President  deemed  it  inexpedient  to 
increase  by  additional  loans,  he  recommended  in  bis  message 
of  December,  1858,  a  modification  of  the  tariff,  with  a  view 
to  an  increase  of  the  revenue  ;  adding,  that,  "  the  incidental 
protection  thus  afforded,  would,  to  some  extent,  increase  the 
confidence  of  the  manufacturing  interests."  He  also  recom- 
mended the  readoption  of  the  system  of  specific  duties  in 
cases  to  which  they  could  be  properly  applied  ;  saying  that 
they  were  "  well  adapted  to  commodities  which  are  sold  by 
weight  or  measure,  and  which,  from  their  nature,  are  of  equal 
or  nearly  equal  value.  Such,  for  example,  are  the  articles  of 
iron  of  different  classes,  raw  sugar,"  &c.  "  In  my  deliberate 
judgment,"  he  continues,  "  specific  duties  are  the  best,  if  not 
the  only  means  of  securing  the  revenue  against  false  and 
fraudulent  invoices  ;  and  such  has  been  the  practice  adopted 
for  this  purpose  by  other  commercial  nations.  Besides,  spe- 
cific duties  would  afford  to  the  American  manufacturer  the 
incidental  advantages  to  which  he  is  fairly  entitled  under  a 
revenue  tariff.  The  present  system  [that  of  ad  valorem  du- 
ties,] is  a  sliding  scale  to  his  disadvantage.  Under  it,  when 
prices  are  high,  and  business  is  prosperous,  the  duties  rise  in 
amount  when  he  least  requires  their  aid.  On  the  contrary, 
when  prices  fall,  and  he  is  struggling  against  adversity,  the 
duties  are  diminished  in  the  same  proportion,  greatly  to  his 
injury." 

This  language  of  the  President  would  seem  to  indicate  an 


1353.]  MEETING  IN  PHILADELPHIA.  393 

attempt  to  retore  the  policy  abandoned  in  1&46.  His  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  however,  in  his  report  to  Congress,  took 
the  opposite  ground,  adhering  to  the  principle  of  the  existing 
tariff,  which  discriminates  against  the  American  producer  of 
metals,  wares  and  fabrics,  by  imposing  high  duties  on  raw 
materials,  instead  of  adequate  duties  on  the  rival  products  of 
Europe. 

What  is  supposed  to  have  contributed  to  the  postpone- 
ment of  this  predicted  revulsion,  under  the  tariff  of  1846,  to 
so  late  a  day,  were  the  immense  loans  in  Europe  for  the  con- 
struction of  railroads.  By  the  expenditure  of  so  many  mill- 
ions in  hiring  and  feeding  the  laborers  employed  upon  these 
works  in  the  West,  the  price  of  grain  was  maintained  at  a 
high  point  ;  and  the  necessity  of  a  protective  tariff  was  not 
so  sensibly  felt.  During  this  period  of  "  fictitious  prosperity," 
as  it  has  been  termed — prolonged,  undoubtedly,  by  these 
enormous  loans  and  the  exportation  of  the  specie  furnished 
by  the  California  mines,  in  part  payment  for  the  large  bal- 
ances against  us  in  our  foreign  trade — the  subject  of  protec- 
tion was  comparatively  little  thought  of  ;  and  many  of  its 
friends  had  begun  to  undervalue  its  importance. 

But  to  this  class  of  persons,  the  want  of  a  protective  tariff 
has  again  become  apparent.  As  is  evident  from  the  exces- 
sive importations,  many  branches  of  manufacturing  industry 
have  greatly  declined.  The  country  has  contracted  a  vast 
foreign  debt  which  it  will  require  many  years  to  cancel,  un- 
der the  wisest  policy.  A  vast  amount  of  capital  has  been,  at 
a  great  loss,  withdrawn  from  active  employment — much  of  it 
entirely  sunk  ;  the  demand  for  labor  has  been  proportiona- 
bly  diminished  ;  and  property,  especially  land  in  tho  West- 
ern States,  has  greatly  depreciated. 

Among  the  interests  which  were  supposed  to  have  suffered 
most  severely  from  the  want  of  adequate  protection,  the 
most  important  were  those  of  iron  and  coal,  in  which  Perm 
sylvania,  of  all  the  States,  was  most  deeply  interested.  To 
the  operation  of  the  existing  "  revenue  tariff,"  was  probably 
to  be  attributed,  in  a  great  measure,  the  result  of  the  elec- 
tion in  that  State  in  October,  1858— the  defeat  of  the  ad- 
ministration or  Democratic  party.  A  meeting  of  "  friends  of 
national  industry"  was  held  in  Philadelphia,  on  the  15th  of 
June,  1858,  at  which  a  Committee  of  Seventy-Six  was  aj> 
pointed  to  promote  the  objects  of  the  meeting.  The  Commit- 
tee, in  an  address,  "to  the  people  of  Pennsylvania,"  enumer- 
ated certain  facts  which  they  considered  as  having  been 

if* 


394  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVI 

proved  by  the  victory  which  had  been  achieved.  Among 
these  facts  are  the  following  : 

"  That  men  of  all  pursuits  of  life — farmers  and  mechanics, 
miners  and  furnace-men,  laborers  and  capitalists,  traders  and 
transporters — have  arrived  at  the  knowledge,  that  they  have 
a  common  interest  in  endeavoring  so  to  diversify  the  de- 
mands for  labor  as  to  bring  together  the  producers  and  con- 
sumers of  the  country  : 

"  That  they  are  awake  to  the  destructive  tendencies  of  a 
system  which  burdens  the  nation  with  a  foreign  debt  that 
already  counts  by  hundreds  of  millions — requiring  the  remit- 
tance of  probably  thirty  millions  of  dollars  annually,  for  the 
payment  of  the  interest  alone  : 

"  That  they  are  unwilling  further  to  sustain  a  policy  which 
condemns  their  own  coal_  and  ore  to  remain  useless  in  the 
ground,  while  draining  the  country  of  the  precious  metals  to 
pay  for  foreign  iron  : 

"  That  they  do  not  desire  longer  to  be  compelled  to  pay 
for  foreign  labor,  while  American  laborers  are  badly  fed  and 
badly  clothed,  because  unemployed  : 

"  That  the  belief  in  the  necessity  for  a  total  change  in  our 
domestic  and  foreign  policy,  is  rapidly  becoming  general 
throughout  the  State. 

"  The  power  to  accomplish  such  a  change,"  the  Committee 
say,  "  is  in  the  hands  of  Pennsylvania  ;  and  it  is  needed 
only  that  she  exercise  it.  Placed,  as  she  is,  between  the 
North  and  the  South — great  as  she  is  in  her  natural  re- 
sources— powerful  as  she  is  by  reason  of  her  wealth  and 
population — she  may,  if  she  will,  guide  and  direct  the  policy 
of  the  Union.  Blind,  however,  to  her  true  interest,  she  has 
but  too  often  permitted  herself  to  be  harnessed  to  the  car  of 
some  ambitious  and  unprincipled  demagogue,  who,  in  con- 
sideration of  favors  to  himself,  has  helped  to  sacrifice  her 
dearest  interests — lending  his  aid  to  the  closing  of  her  mills 
and  furnaces,  and  to  the  expulsion  of  her  workmen,  and 
thereby  depriving  her  farmers  of  the  advantage  of  having  a 
market  near  at  hand.  The  consequences  exhibit  themselves 
in  the  fact  that  she  has  had  no  real  influence  in  the  Union — 
her  votes  having  been  obtained  by  means  of  frauds  like  that 
of  '  Polk,  Dallas,  and  the  Tariff  of  '42,'  while  she  herself, 
when  asking  attention  to  her  interests,  has  been  treated  as  a 
mere  pauper,  seeking  to  be  fed  at  the  public  cost.  Such,  fel- 
low-citizens, have  been  the  effects  of  permitting  herself  to  be 
led,  when  she  should  have  placed  herself  in  the  lead — of  in- 


1859.J  A  NEW  BILL  DEFEATED.  395 

dorsing  the  opinions  of  others  when  she  should  boldly  have 
proclaimed  her  own." 

To  the  hope  of  appeasing  and  reclaiming-  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  some  have  ascribed  the  recommendation,  by 
the  President,  in  his  next  annual  message,  to  which  we  have 
alluded.  That  recommendation,  however,  received  no  favor- 
able response  from  Congress.  The  previous  Congress  had, 
in  1857,  modified  the  tariff  by  a  further  reduction  of  duties  ; 
and  it  was  hardly  to  be  expected  that  the  subject  would  so 
soon  be  taken  up  again,  especially  by  a  Congress  of  the  same 
political  complexion  as  that  which  preceded  it.  In  his  next 
annual  message,  [December,  1859,]  he  again  expressly  re- 
commended "  an  increase  of  our  present  duties  on  imports," 
to  raise  the  necessary  revenue.  Another  Congress  having 
come  into  power,  a  tariff  bill,  framed  in  accordance  with  the 
views  of  the  friends  of  protection,  passed  the  House,  but  was 
rejected  by  the  Semite. 


THE  PROTECTIVE  Si'STEM.  [Ctap.  XVII- 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

Constitutionality  of  a  protective  tariff  considered.     Views  of  Washington,  Jeffer- 
son, Madison,  Monroe,  Jackson,  and  others. 

Ix  the  foregoing  history  of  the  tariff,  taken  chiefly  from 
the  public  records,  the  opinions  and  the  leading  arguments 
of  American  statesmen  and  legislators,  on  both  sides  of  the 
question,  have  been  fairly  presented.  We  subjoin  a  few 
Chapters  in  which  is  given  a  succinct  view  of  the  question, 
together  with  additional  arguments  and  authorities,  in  con- 
firmation of  the  doctrines  affirmed  by  protectionists,  and  with 
such  arrangement  and  references  as  to  render  this  a  conve- 
nient text-book  on  this  subject. 

The  question  which  seems  first  to  claim  our  consideration, 
is  that  of  the  constitutionality  of  a  protective  tariff;  for  if  such 
a  tariff  is  not  authorized  by  the  Constitution,  the  policy  of 
protection  ought  at  once  to  be  abandoned.  The  question 
then  is,  Does  the  Constitution  confer  upon  the  General  Gov- 
ernment the  power  to  encourage  domestic  industry  by  laying 
duties  upon  imports  ? 

The  reader,  by  recurring  to  the  history  of  the  Constitution, 
a  sketch  of  which  is  given  in  the  first  Chapter  of  this  work, 
will  see  that  the  Convention  which  framed  that  instrument, 
was  called  for  the  very  purpose  of  conferring  upon  the  Gov- 
ernment the  power  to  countervail,  by  retaliatory  duties,  the 
restrictions  imposed  upon  our  commerce  arid  navigation  by 
fareign  nations,  especially  by  Great  Britain.  And  is  it  prob- 
able that,  having  been  convened  for  that  purpose,  the  fram- 
crs  should  have  neglected  to  supply  that  defect  in  the  Con- 
federation, for  the  evils  of  which  so  many  fruitless  attempts 
had  been  made  to  find  a  remedy?  That  this  defect  has  been 
supplied  by  the  Constitution,  is  manifest  from  the  expressed 
opinions  and  official  acts  of  the  early  administrators  of  the 
present  Government,  the  most  eminent  of  whom  participated 
in  the  framing  of  the  Constitution. 

Marshall,  in  his  life  of  Washington.  Vol.  V.,  p.  69,  says  : 
"  The  idea  of  compelling  Great  Britain  to  relax  somewhat  of 
the  rigors  of  her  system,  by  opposing  it  with  regulations 
equally  restrictive,  seems  to  have  been  generally  taken  up." 


Chap.  XVII.]  CONSTITUTIONAL  QUESTION.  397 

Washington,  writing  to  a  friend  in  Great  Britain,  states  : 
"  They  [the  people]  now  see  the  indispensable  necessity  of  a 
general  controlling  power,  and  are  addressing  their  respec- 
tive assemblies  to  grant  it  to  Congress." 

Again  :  "  I  do  not  see  that  we  can  long  exist  as  a  nation, 
without  lodging  somewhere  a  power  which  will  pervade  the 
whole  Union,  in  as  energetic  a  manner  as  the  authority  of 
the  State  Governments  extends  over  the  several  States." 

Mr.  Dawes,  in  Elliot's  Debates,  Vol.  I,  p.  76,  is  reported  to 
have  said,  in  the  Massachusetts  convention  :  "Our  manufac- 
tures are  another  great  object  which  has  received  no  encour- 
agement by  national  duties  on  foreign  manufactures,  and 
they  never  can,  by  any  authority  in  the  old  Confederation." 

These,  and  numerous  other  extracts  which  might  be  made 
from  published  letters  and  public  documents,  superaddeti  to 
the  familiar  political  history  of  those  times,  afford  conclusive 
evidence  of  the  general  expectation,  that  the  power  in  ques- 
tion would  be  granted  to  Congress.  Equally  evident  is  it 
that  the  framers  and  their  cotemporaries  considered  that  the 
power  had  been  granted. 

Washington,  who  was  a  member  and  President  of  the 
Convention  of  framers,  said  in  his  Inaugural  Address  :  "  The 
advancement  of  agriculture,  by  all  proper  means,  will  not, 
I  trust,  need  recommendation.  But  I  can  not  forbear  inti- 
mating to  you  the  expediency  of  giving  effectual  encourage- 
ment, as  well  to  the  introduction  of  new  and  useful  inven- 
tions from  abroad,  as  to  the  exertion  and  skill  in  producing 
them  at  home." 

Mr.  Jefferson  said  in  his  report  of  23d  February,  1793, 
made  pursuant  to  a  resolution  of  the  House  of  the  14th  Feb- 
ruary, 1791  :  "Where  a  nation  imposes  high  duties  on  our 
productions,  or  prohibits  them  altogether,  it  may  be  proper 
for  us  to  do  the  same  by  theirs,  first  burdening  or  excluding 
those  productions  which  they  bring  here  in  competition  with 
our  own  of  the  same  kind,  imposing  on  them  duties  lower  at 
first,  but  heavier  and  heavier  afterwards,  as  other  channels 
of  supply  open." 

In  his  message,  November,  1804,  he  submits  :  "  Whether 
the  great  interests  of  agriculture,  manufactures,  commerce 
and  navigation,  can,  within  the  pale  of  your  constitutional 
powers,  be  aided  in  any  of  their  relations." 

Again  :  "  An  immediate  prohibition  of  the  exportation  of 
arms  is  submitted  io  your  consideration." 

Again  :  In  his  annual  message  of  1806,  after  noticing  the 


398  TIIE   PROTECTIVE    SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVII 

rapid  liquidation  of  the  public  debt,  and  the  prospect  of  sur- 
plus revenue  not  far  distant,  lie  said  : 

"  The  question  now  comes  forward — To  what  other  object 
shall  these  [anticipated]  surpluses  be  appropriated,  and  the 
whole  surplus  of  imposts  after  the  entire  discharge  of  the 
public  debt,  and  during  those  intervals  when  the  purpose  of 
war  would  not  call  for  them  ?  Shall  we  suppress  imposts,  and 
girt  that  advantage  to  foreign  over  domestic,  manufactures  1  On  a 
few  articles  of  more  general  and  more  necessary  use  the  sup- 
pression will  doubtless  be  right  ;  but  the  great  mass  of  the 
articles  on  which  impost  is  paid,  are  foreign  luxuries,  pur- 
chased by  those  only  who  are  rich  enough  to  afford  them- 
selves the  use  of  them.  Their  patriotism  would  certainly 
prefer  its  continuance  and  application  to  the  £reat  purposes 
of  public  education,  roads,  rivers,  canals,  arid  such  other  ob- 
jects of  public  improvement,  as  it  may  be  thought  proper  to 
add  to  the  constitutional  enumeration  of  federal  powers.  By 
these  operations,  new  channels  of  communication  will  be 
opened  between  the  States  ;  the  lines  of  separation  will  dis- 
« appear  ;  their  interests  will  be  identified  ;  and  their  union 
cemented  by  new  and  indissoluble  ties." 

Now  Mr.  Jefferson  is  well  known  to  have  been  in  favor  of 
a  strict  construction  of  the  Constitution.  Yet  it  is  evident 
from  the  foregoing  extract,  that,  although  there  might  be 
"  objects  of  public  improvement"  to  which  the  imposts  could 
not  be  constitutionally  applied  without  an  enlargement  of  the 
"  federal  powers,"  as  to  the  power  of  laying  the  "  impost," 
for  the  "  advantage  of  domestic  manufactures,"  he  entertained 
no  doubt. 

Mr.  Madison,  in  his  message,  December,  1810,  says  :  "  Al- 
though other  objects  will  press  more  immediately  on  your 
deliberations,  a  portion  of  them  can  not  but  be  well  bestowed 
on  the  just  and  sound  policy  of  securing  to  our  manufac- 
tures the  success  they  have  attained,  and  are  still  attaining, 
under  the  impulse  of  causes  not  permanent  ;  and  to  our  nav- 
igation the  fair  extent  of  which  it  is  at  present  abridged  by 
the  unequal  regulations  of  foreign  Governments." 

Not  less  explicit  is  his  language  in  other  messages  and 
communications  :  "  From  this  Convention,"  says  he,  "  pro- 
ceeded the  Federal  Constitution,  which  gives  to  the  general 
will  the  means  of  providing,  in  the  several  necessary  cases, 
for  the  general  welfare  ;  and  particularly  in  .the  case  of  reg- 
ulating our  commerce  in  such  manner  as  may  be  required  by 
the  regulation  of  other  countries. 


Chap.  XVII.]  CONSTITUTIONAL  QUESTION.  399 

These  extracts,  to  which  many  more  might  be  added,  are 
sufficient  to  show  that  the  Constitution  was  supposed  to  con- 
tain a  grant  of  the  power  to  encourage  domestic  industry. 
And  it  is  worthy  of  observation,  that  none  of  these  statesmen 
here  speak  of  the  power  of  protection  as  incidental  to  the  pow- 
er of  laying  duties  for  revenue,  but  leave  the  reader  to  infer 
that  Congress  has  power  to  lay  protective  duties  for  the  sake 
of  protection  ;  and  not  merely,  in  laying  duties  for  revenue,  to 
discriminate  in  favor  of  those  articles  which  need  encourage- 
ment. It  may  also  be  observed,  that  among  our  statesmen, 
none  adhered  more  firmly  to  a  strict  construction  of  the  Con- 
stitution than  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  yet  none  recommended  the 
exercise  of  this  power  to  a  greater  extent. 

It  has  already  been  stated,  that  the  first  act  of  a  general 
nature  passed  by  Congress  under  the  present  Government, 
was  an  act,  one  of  the  objects  of  which  was  expressly  de- 
clared in  a  preamble  to  be,  "  the  encouragement  and  protec- 
tion of  domestic  manufactures,  by  duties  on  goods,  wares, 
and  merchandise  imported.'''  [See  page  20.] 

Although  the  authorities  here  cited  ought  to  be  deemed 
conclusive  on  the  subject,  it  will  be  both  interesting  and 
profitable  to  the  political  student  to  examine  the  arguments 
in  fayor  of  this  power,  drawn  from  the  provisions  of  the  Con- 
stitution itself.  Mr.  Madison,  from  the  prominent  part  taken 
by  him  in  its  formation,  and  from  his  defense  arid  exposition 
of  it  prior  to  its  adoption,  has  with  propriety  been  styled  the 
"  Father  of  the  Constitution."  The  opinions  of  no  other  per- 
son, therefore,  on  any  of  its  provisions,  are  entitled  to  great- 
er weight  than  his.  When,  in  later  times,  this  power  came 
to  be  called  in  question,  he  favored  a  friend,  in  1828,  with  an 
exposition  of  those  clauses  of  the  Constitution  which  are  al- 
leged to  contain  the  power  claimed.  The  letter  was  address- 
ed to  Joseph  C.  Cabell,  Esq.  We  extract  from  it  the  follow- 
ing : 

"  The  Constitution  vests  in  Congress,  expressly,  the  'pow- 
er to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises  ;'  and 
the  '  power  to  regulate  trade.' 

"  That  the  former  power,  if  not  particularly  expressed, 
would  have  been  included  in  the  latter  as  one  of  the  objects 
of  the  power  to  regulate  trade,  is  not  necessarily  impugned 
by  its  being  so  expressed.  Examples  of  this  sort  can  not 
sometimes  be  easily  avoided,  and  arc  to  be  seen  elsewhere 
in  the  Constitution.  Thus  the  power  '  to  define  and  punish 
offenses  against  the  law  of  nations,  includes  the  power  after- 


400  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVII. 

wards  particularly  expressed,  '  to  make  rules  concerning  cap- 
tures/ &c.f  from  offending  neutrals.  So  also  the  potver  'to 
coin  money,'  would  doubtless  include  that  of  '  regulating  its 
value/  had  not  the  latter  power  been  expressly  inserted.  The 
term  taxes,  if  standing  alone,  would  certainly  have  included 
duties,  imposts,  and  excises.  In  another  clause  it  is  said, 
'  no  tax  or  duties  shall  be  laid  on  exports/  &c.  Here  the  two 
terms  are  used  as  synonymous.  And  in  another  clause, 
where  it  is  said,  '  no  State  shall  lay  imposts  or  duties/  &c.f 
the  terms  imposts  and  duties  are  synonymous. 

"  It  is  a  simple  question  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  whether  the  '  power  to  regulate  trade  with 
foreign  nations/  as  a  distinct  arid  substantive  item  in  tho 
enumerated  powers,  embraces  the  object  of  encouraging,  by 
duties,  restrictions,  and  prohibitions,  the  manufactures  and 
products  of  the  country.  And  the  affirmative  must  be  infer- 
red from  the  following  considerations  : 

"  The  meaning  of  the  phrase  '  to  regulate  trade/  must  be 
sought  in  the  general  use  cf  it  ;  in  other  words,  in  the  objects 
to  which  the  power  was  generally  understood  to  be  applica- 
ble, when  the  phrase  was  inserted  in  the  Constitution. 

"  2.  The  power  has  been  understood  and  used  by  all  com- 
mercial and  manufacturing  nations,  as  embracing  the  object 
of  encouraging  manufactures.  It  is  believed  that  not  a  sin- 
gle exception  can  be  named. 

"  3.  This  had  been  particularly  the  case  with  Great  Britain, 
whose  commercial  vocabulary  is  the  parent  of  ours.  A  pri- 
mary object  of  her  commercial  regulations  is  well  known  to 
have  been  the  protection  and  encouragement  of  her  manu- 
factures. 

"  4.  Such  was  understood  to  be  a  proper  use  of  the  power 
by  the  States  most  prepared  for  manufacturing  industry, 
whilst  retaining  the  power  over  their  foreign  trade. 

14  5.  Such  a  use  of  the  power,  by  Congress,  accords  with 
the  intention  and  expectation  of  the  States,  in  transferring 
the  power  over  trade  from  themselves  to  the  Government  of 
the  United  States.  This  was  emphatically  the  case  in  the 
Eastern,  the  more  manufacturing  members  of  the  Confede- 
racy. 

"  6.  If  Congress  have  not  the  power,  it  is  annihilated  for 
the  nation  :  a  policy  without  example  in  any  other  nation. 

"  7.  If  revenue  be  the  sole  object  of  a  legitimate  impost, 
and  the  encouragement  of  domestic  articles  be  not  within 
the  power  of  regulating  trad-,  it  would  follow  that  n?  mo- 


Chap  XVII.]  CONSTITUTIONAL  QUESTION.  401 

nopolizing  or  unequal  regulations  of  foreign  nations  could 
be  counteracted  ;  that  neither  the  staple  articles  of  subsis- 
tence, nor  the  essential  implements  for  the  public  safety, 
could,  under  any  circumstances,  be  insured  or  fostered  at 
home,  by  regulations  of  commerce,  the  usual  and  most  con- 
venient mode  of  providing  for  both  ;  and  that  the  American 
navigation,  though  the  source  of  naval  defense,  of  a  cheap- 
ening competition  in  carrying  our  valuable  and  bulky  arti- 
cles to  market,  and  of  an  independent  carriage  of  them  dur- 
ing foreign  wars,  when  a  foreign  navigation  might  be  with- 
drawn, must  be  at  once  abandoned,  or  speedily  destroyed  ; 
it  being  evident  that  a  tunnage  duty  in  foreign  ports  against 
our  vessels,  and  an  exemption  from  such  a  duty,  in  oui 
ports,  in  favor  of  foreign  vessels,  must  have  the  inevitable 
effect  of  banishing  ours  from  the  ocean. 

"  To  assume  a  power  to  protect  our  navigation,  and  the 
cultivation  and  fabrication  of  all  articles  requisite  for  the 
public  safety,  as  incident  to  the  war  power,  would  be  a  more 
latitudinary  construction  of  the  Constitution,  than  to  consider 
it  as  embraced  by  the  specified  power  to  regulate  trade  ;  a 
power  which  has  been  exercised  by  all  nations  for  those  pur- 
poses, and  which  effects  those  purposes  with  less  of  interfer- 
ence with  the  authority  and  conveniency  of  the  States,  than 
might  result  from  internal  and  direct  modes  of  encouraging 
the  articles,  any  of  which  modes  would  be  authorized,  as  far 
as  deemed  '  necessary  and  proper/  by  considering  the  power 
as  an  incidental  power. 

"  8.  That  the  encouragement  of  manufactures  was  an  ob- 
ject of  the  power  to  regulate  trade,  as  proved  by  the  use 
made  of  the  power  for  that  object,  in  the  first  session  of  the 
first  Congress  under  the  Constitution,  when  among  the  mem- 
bers present  were  so  many  who  had  been  members  of  the 
Federal  Convention  which  framed  the  Constitution,  and  of  the 
State  Conventions  which  ratified  it ;  each  of  these  classes 
consisting  of  members  who  had  opposed  and  who  had  es- 
poused the  Constitution  in  its  actual  form.  It  does  not  appear 
from  the  printed  proceedings  of  Congress  on  that  occasion, 
that  the  power  was  denied  by  any  of  them  ;  and  it  may  be 
remarked,  that  members  from  Virginia,  in  particular,  as  well 
cf  the  anti-Federal  as  the  Federal  party,  the  names  then  dis- 
tinguishing those  who  had  opposed  and  those  who  had  ap- 
proved the  Constitution,  did  not  hesitate  to  propose  duties, 
and  suggest  prohibitions  in  favor  of  several  articles  of  her 
production.  By  one  a  duty  was  proposed  on  mineral  coal  in 


402  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVII. 

favor  of  Virginia  coal-pits  ;  by  another,  a  duty  on  hemp  was 
proposed,  to  encourage  the  growth  of  that  article  ;  and  by  a 
third,  a  prohibition  of  even  foreign  beef  was  suggested,  as  a 
measure  of  sound  policy. 

"  A  further  evidence  in  support  of  the  constitutional  power 
to  protect  and  foster  manufactures  by  regulations  of  trade, 
an  evidence  that  ought,  of  itself,  to  settle  the  question,  is  the 
uniform  and  practical  sanction  given  to  the  power  by  the  General 
Government,  for  nearly  forty  years  ;  with  the  concurrence  or  ac- 
quiescence of  every  State  Government,  throughout  the  same 
period,  and,  it  may  be  added,  through  all  the  vicissitudes  of 
party  which  marked  the  period.  No  novel  construction,  how- 
ever ingeniously  devised,  and  however  respectable  and  patri- 
otic its  patrons,  can  withstand  the  weight  of  such  authority, 
or  the  unbroken  current  of  so  long  and  universal  a  practice." 

It  is  certainly  not  easy  to  conceive  by  what  reasoning  these 
arguments  of  Mr.  Madison  can  be  successfully  resisted  ;  nor 
how  they  can  fail  to  convince  any  intelligent  and  candid 
mind  of  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  protect  do- 
mestic industry.  But  these  were  not  newly  formed  opinions 
of  Mr.  Madison.  Nor  were  they  new  to  him  at  the  date  of 
his  message  to  Congress  in  1810,  an  extract  from  which  has 
been  quoted  in  a  preceding  page.  He  was  a  member  of  the 
first  Congress,  and  took  a  part  in  the  enactment  of  the  law 
of  1789  so  often  referred  to.  From  one  of  his  speeches  in 
support  of  that  law,  we  extract  the  following  : 

"  We  have  now  the  power  to  avail  ourselves  of  our  national 
superiority,  and  I  am  for  beginning  with  some  manifestation 
of  that  ability,  that  foreign  nations  may  be  taught  to  pay  us 
that  respect  which  they  have  neglected  on  account  of  our  im- 
becility. This  language  and  those  sentiments  are  the  lan- 
guage and  sentiments  of  our  constituents  ;  the  great  politi- 
cal revolution  now  brought  about  by  the  new  Government,  lias 
its  foundation  in  these  sentiments.  -  Sensible  of  the  selfish 
policy  which  actuated  a  nation  long  disposed  to  do  all  she 
could  to  discourage  our  commercial  operations,  the  States 
singly  attempted  to  counteract  her  nefarious  schemes  ;  but 
finding  their  separate  exertions  ineffectual,  with  a  united 
voice  they  called  for  a  new  arrangement,  constituted  to  con- 
center, conduct,  and  point  their  powers  so  as  to  obtain  that 
reciprocity  which  justice  demands.  The  arrangement  has 
taken  place  ;  and  though  gentlemen  may  contend  that  we 
are  not  at  this  moment  prepared  to  use  it  in  the  latitude  I 
could  wish,  yet  let  them  concur  in  doing  what  shall  indicate 


£hnp.XVH.J  CONSTITUTIONAL  QUESTION.  403 

that  on  a  proper  occasion  we  dare  exert  ourselves  in  defeat- 
ing- any  measure  which  commercial  policy  shall  offer,  hostile 
to  the  welfare  of  America." 

At  another  time,  in  the  same  session,  he  used  the  following 
language  :  "  I  am  ashamed,  sir,  when  I  consider  how,  in 
consequence  of  her  regulations,  the  whole  proceeds  of  Ameri- 
can shipments  are  drawn  into  the  British  treasury.  Sir,  this 
preponderation  ought  not  to  be.  It  is  in  our  power  to  effect 
an  alteration.  The  productions  of  our  country  are  more 
necessary  to  Great  Britain  and  the  rest  of  the  world,  than 
those  of  the  world  at  large,  or  the  manufactures  of  Great 
Britain,  are  to  us.5' 

At  this  early  period  constitutional  objections  to  the  exer- 
cise of  the  power  of  protection  had  not  been  raised  ;  nor  were 
they  for  many  years  afterwards.  But  in  the  later  tariffs,  the 
existence  of  this  power  became  the  subject  of  much  contro- 
versy. In  the  debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  tariff  of  1832, 
this  powrer  was  thus  defended  by  Mr.  Bobbins,  of  Rhode 
Island  : 

"  If  the  power  of  taxation,  ad  libitum  in  amount,  be  in  Con- 
gress, the  exercise  of  that  power  must  be  discretionary  with 
Congress  ;  and  whether,  in  any  given  instance,  it  shall  be 
exercised,  or  to  what  extent  it  shall  be  exercised,  must 
always  be  a  question  of  expediency,  and  never  can  be  a  ques- 
tion of  constitutional  right.  Now,  the  power  of  taxation  is 
expressly  given  to  Congress,  and  without  limitation  as  to  the 
amount  of  revenue  to  be  raised  by  it.  That  amount  is  left  to 
the  discretion  of  Congress. 

"  Again  :  The  regulation  of  commerce  with  foreign  nations 
is  expressly  given  to  Congress,  arid  given  without  restriction. 
Now  a  tariff  of  duties  on  imports  is  literally  and  strictly  a 
regulation  of  commerce  with  foreign  nations  ;  and  whether 
that  tariff  shall  be  higher  or  lower,  or  what  it  shall  be,  must 
be  a  question  of  expediency,  and  can  not  be  a  question  of 
constitutional  right. 

"  Besides,  this  power,  as  has  been  well  stated  and  ably 
argued  by  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Tennessee,  [Mr. 
Grundy,]  is  essential  to  national  sovereignty  ;  and  to  deny 
it  to  our  Government,  would  be,  so  far,  to  lay  our  country 
prostrate  at  the  feet  of  every  other  sovereignty  in  the  world. 
.  .  .  .  If  you  admit  (and  who  will  deny  it  ?)  that  our 
Government  may  exert  this  power  against  other  Govern- 
ments, to  vindicate  our  equal  and  just  rights,  you  give  up  the 
whole  controversy  ;  for  then  you  admit  the  existence  of  tho 


404  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVII. 

power  in  the  Government.  The  power  being  admitted,  its 
exercise,  in  all  cases,  must  be  regulated  by  the  discretion  of 
Congress." 

But  there  is  a  large  class  of  professed  protectionists,  who, 
as  wo  have  elsewhere  observed,  concede  to  Congress  the 
right  to  protect  only  incidentally  ;  that  is,  the  right  to  levy 
duties,  and  to  any  amount,  for  the  purpose  of  revenue  ;  and 
in  so  doing  they  may  lay  them  upon  articles  of  the  kind 
which  they  wish  to  protect,  thus  making  the  power  of  pro- 
tection incidental  to  the  power,  of  raising  revenue.  But  they 
do  not  admit  the  constitutional  right  of  Congress  to  impose 
duties  "for  the  sake  of  protection."  Upon  this  doctrine,  Mr. 
Holmes,  of  Maine,  in  the  tariff  debate  in  the  Senate,  in  1832, 
commented  thus  : 

"  Now,  if  by  '  incidental'  we  are  to  understand  casual,  for- 
tuitous, accidental,  the  protection  must  be  a  mere  happening, 
and  can  not  at  all  enter  into  the  design.  Miserable,  indeed, 
would  be  the  fate  of  your  manufactures,  were  their  protec- 
tion the  sport  of  chance,  or  a  blind  fatuity.  But  ascribe  to 
the  term  a  secondary  meaning,  to  wit,  '  subordinate,  or  not 
essential  to  the  chief  purpose,'  and  then  your  impost  must  be 
chiefly  financial,  or  subordinately  protective.  But  here  a 
question  meets  us  at  the  threshold.  In  determining  whether 
an  impost  is  chiefly  financial  or  not,  must  we,  in  order  to  de- 
termine its  character  for  constitutionality,  be  governed  by  the 
design,  or  by  the  effect  ?  An  act  intended  for  revenue  may 
become  almost  entirely  protective  ;  and  on  the  contrary,  an 
act  intended  for  protection  may  operate  exclusively  for 
revenue. 

"  Let  us  first  suppose  it  is  the  design  of  the  act  which  is  to 
determine  its  character,  and  that  we  could  agree  in  the  tri- 
bunal which  is  to  make  the  decision  :  it  must  be  an  exceed- 
ingly critical  matter  to  decide.  You  must  keep  an  account 
current  of  motives,  and  set  down  to  the  credit  of  the  law 
those  Senators  who  voted  for  it  as  a  revenue  law,  and  to  the 
debit  side  those  who  voted  for  it  for  protection  ;  and  those 
ic?r  nothing  who  were  governed  alike  by  both  motives.  But 
when  you  come  to  those  who  were  governed  almost  as  much 
te  consideration  as  another,  and  also  those  who  were 
against  the  law  altogether,  you  would  find  it  very  difficult  to 
get-down  to  the  end  of  the  alphabet  with  any  accuracy  even 
in  this  Senate.  And  then  you  snust  ascertain  the  motives  of 
a  much  more  numerous  branch,  many  members  of  which 
would  not  probably  know  how  or  why  they  voted.  And 


Chap.  XVII.]  CONSTITUTIONAL  QUESTION.  405 

where  is  the  tribunal  to  search  the  hearts  and  try  the  de- 
signs of  the  Federal  Legislature  who  enacted  the  law  ? 

"  But  if  the  constitutionality  is  to  be  determined  by  the 
effect,  the  difficulties  will  thicken,  and  are  indeed  insurmount- 
able. The  decision  is  to  be  made,  not  upon  the  laws  and 
Constitution,  but  by  matter  of  fact.  It  is  to  depend  upon 
facts,  and  of  a  character,  too,  the  most  corrupt  and  uncertain, 
ascertained  not  even  by  positive  and  direct  testimony,  but 
upon  the  mere  opinions  of  men  influenced  by  different  and 
opposite  views  arid  interests.  Is  this  law  chiefly  financial, 
or  chiefly  protective  in  its  operations  ?  This  is  the  question 
of  fact  to  be  determined,  upon  which  hangs  the  validity  of  a 
law.  A  State,  (for  your  Federal  Court  would  not,)  looking 
up  evidence  to  nullify  an  act  of  Congress  !  Look  a  little 
further  :  An  act  at  first  financial  and  very  constitutional,  be- 
comes, by  its  operation,  protective,  and  therefore  unconstitu- 
tional— -dead.  And  who  can  tell  at  what  time  it  died  ? 
When  w7as  this  good  law  converted  into  a  dead  letter  ?  And 
if  this  be  so,  then  the  converse  proposition  is  true,  that  an 
act  of  Congress,  protective,  and  therefore  unconstitutional,  at 
first,  may,  by  the  course  of  events,  be  raised  into  full  and  ac- 
tive life  by  its  becoming  financial.  Sir,  can  it  be  seriously 
insisted  that  this  power  over  the  imposts  is  confined  exclu- 
sively to  revenue,  and  that  it  has  annexed  to  it  this  vague, 
visionary,  incoherent,  'incidental'  quality,  which  none  can 
define  or  understand  ?  It  is  most  manifest  that  this  word 
was  inserted  in  the  constitution  with  its  then  ordinary  im- 
port, force,  and  effect,  qualified  or  altered  only  by  the  excep- 
tions and  limitations  connected  with  it.  And  all  of  such  a 
character  were  those  only  which  require  its  '  uniformity,'  and 
forbid  it  upon  '  exports.' 

"  But  for  what  other  purposes  than  revenue  was  this  pow- 
er given  ?  The  purpose  for  which  it  has  always  been  em- 
ployed by  other  nations,  and  by  several  of  the  States,  was 
commercial  ;  and,  in  some  nations,  that  was  almost  its  exclu- 
sive purpose.  Other  modes  of  taxation  were  resorted  to  for 
revenue,  but  this  was  an  instrument  for  the  protection  of 
commerce.  This,  when  the  constitution  was  framed,  was  the 
chief  engine  of  all  the  restrictions  and  countervailing  restric- 
tions of  every  commercial  nation.  The  people  of  the  United 
States  were  suffering  from  this  power  which  they  themselves 
were  unable  to  exercise  ;  and  it  was  for  this  reason,  more 
than  any  other,  that  they  consented  to  adopt  the  constitu- 
tion." 


406  TIIE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVII. 

Mr.  H.  then  went  into  an  exposition  of  the  clauses  of  the 
Constitution  conferring  the  power  of  taxation  and  of  regulating 
commerce,  proving  from  Say  and  other  authors,  that  the  term 
commerce  extends  to  all  products  of  agiicultural  and  manufac- 
turing industry  ;  and  then  proceeded  : 

"Take  away  from  commerce  the  products  of  agriculture 
and  manufactures,  and  there  is  nothing  left ;  labor  and  capi- 
tal are  the  agent,  the  products  of  agriculture  the  object,  and 
commerce  is  the  action.  Now,  take  away  the  object,  and 
there  is  nothing  on  which  to  act.  And  how  can  you  act 
when  there  is  nothing  to  do  ?  Without  these  products,  com- 
merce is  a  mere  ideal  being ;  it  is  even  less,  it  is  the  merest 
abstraction  ;  there  is  nothing  in  it  tangible,  ostensible,  or 
imaginable.  You  may  as  well  conceive  of  roundness  without 
a  ball,  or  smoothness  without  a  surface,  motion  without  some- 
thing to  be  moved,  a  quality  without  the  thing  qualified,  as 
of  commerce  without  the  objects  of  exchange. 

"  Navigation  is  not  commerce,  and  no  power  is  given  to 
regulate  this.  It  is  the  vehicle,  the  instrument,  by  which 
commerce  is  carried  on.  It  is  even  less  essential  to  com- 
merce than  the  products  of  agriculture  and  manufactures  ; 
because,  without  these,  there  can  be  no  commerce  ;  and  with- 
out the  interchange  of  these,  commerce  is  a  misnomer.  And 
where  is  your  power  to  regulate  seamen,  as  another  instru- 
ment of  commerce  ?  Yet  this  never  has  been  questioned. 
.  .  To  regulate  commerce,  therefore,  is  to  prescribe  rules  to 
govern  the  exchange  of  the  products  of  agriculture  and  man- 
ufactures ;  and  it  is  a  power  over  the  whole  subject-matter, 
except  where  restrained  by  the  Constitution  itself.  But  if  I 
am  wrong  in  this,  the  Constitution  has  failed  of  its  design. 
It  originated  in  a  want  of  power  to  reciprocate  the  favor,  and 
retaliate  the  injuries  of  foreign  nations  on  this  very  subject 
of  trade.  This  power  of  protecting  our  own  manufacturers 
was  urged  as  the  chief  reason  for  its  adoption." 

Mr.  Choate,  Senator  in  Congress  from  Massachusetts,  in 
1842,  maintained  that  the  General  Government  had  the  Con- 
stitutional power  to  protect  and  encourage  American  indus- 
try ;  and  that  it  was  to  be  found  in  the  taxing  power,  sanc- 
tioned and  authorized  by  the  clause  in  the  Constitution  which 
delegates  the  power  to  regulate  commerce.  He  contended 
that,  under  these  powers,  there  was  a  cooperating  duty  im- 
perative on  the  Government,  to  afford  home  industry  full 
protection,  regardless  of  every  one  and  everything  but  the 
obvious  intention  of  the  object  of  the  Constitution  ;  and  that 


Chap.  XVII. J  CONSTITUTIONAL  QUESTION.  407 

intention  was  to  be  traced  with  certainty  from  abundance  of 
cotemporaneous  evidence.  This,  he  argued,  was  the  true, 
and  only  true  American  policy.  He  considered  the  Govern- 
ment not  only  bound  to  protect,  but  to  bring  to  life  every 
source  of  prosperity  in  the  country.  He  held  that  discrimi- 
nation was  to  be  carried  to  any  necessary  extent  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  this  object,  and  that  Congress  could,  under 
the  Constitution,  exempt  from  duty,  any  articles  it  pleased, 
and  put  what  duties  it  thought  proper  on  others,  and  above 
all,  could,  and  ought  to  adjust  the  tariff  by  the  home  valua- 
tion alone.  He  insisted  that  Mr.  Madison,  from  the  year 
1789,  to  the  close  of  his  life,  had  always  contended  that  this 
power  was  found  in  the  clause  authorizing  Congress  to  regu- 
late commerce  with  the  world.  In  proof  of  this,  he  read 
passages  from  Mr.  Madison's  messages  and  letters.  He  consid- 
ered Mr.  Madison  good  authority  for  the  power  given  by  the 
Constitution. 

Congress,  he  maintained,  was  authorized  by  the  Constitu- 
tion, fully  and  amply,  in  the  clause  for  the  regulation  of  com- 
merce, to  do  and  perform  any  act  which,  according  to  the 
vocabulary  of  the  time,  could  be  deemed  and  taken  to  be  an 
act  in  the  furtherance  of  the  regulation  of  commerce,  even  if 
reaching  to  the  total  exclusion  of  foreign  imports  affecting 
injuriously  domestic  commerce.  This  presumption  is  para- 
mount till  the  contrary  is  proved  ;  and  the  contrary  had 
never  yet  been  proved.  It  never  had  been  shown  that  the 
language  of  the  Constitution  did  not  mean  what  the  friends 
of  protection  construe  it  to  mean,  supported  by  the  cotempo- 
raneous language  of  every  commercial  country  of  that  time. 
He  argued  that,  in  the  year  1787  or  1789,  the  term  to  "  regu- 
late commerce"  meant  a  power  to  pass  any  law  deemed  nec- 
essary for  the  protection  of  domestic  industry.  No  commer- 
cial country  of  that  day  understood  the  phrase  in  any  other 
sense.  In  support  of  this,  he  took  a  general  review  of  Brit- 
ish legislation  at  that  period. 

Throughout  the  controversy  of  the  mother  country  with 
her  transatlantic  colonies,  he  averred,  every  speaker  and 
every  writer — every  politician — understood  the  right  main- 
tained by  the  British  Government  to  protect  and  encourage 
its  own  manufacturing  interests,  to  rest  on  its  power  "  to 
regulate  commerce  ;"  and  he  quoted  many  authorities,  chiefly 
speeches  and  politicians  of  England  arid  this  country,  from 
the  year  1766  to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  thence 
down  to  the  present  time.  From  all  this,  the  framers  of  the 


408  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVII. 

Constitution  could  understand  the  phrase  "  to  regulate  com- 
merce" in  no  other  sense  than  that  which  so  universally  pre- 
vailed at  the  time.  This  he  considered  presumptive  evidence 
that  the  framcrs  of  the  Constitution  intended  to  afford  do- 
mestic industry  substantive  encouragement  as  well  as  inci- 
dental protection — the  one  under  the  power  to  regulate  com- 
merce, and  the  other  under  the  taxing  power. 

He  asserted,  also,  that  before  the  year  1787,  the  people  of 
this  country  demanded  a  stronger  Government  for  the  very 
purpose  of  protecting  home  industry  against  foreign  compe- 
tition ;  and  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  commerce  with 
other  nations,  so  as  to  check  the  importation  of  goods  inter- 
fering with  domestic  manufactures,  and  to  give  home  indus- 
try an  impetus  which  would  develop  all  the  resources  of  the 
country  essential  for  the  supply  and  consumption  of  the  Con- 
federation, whether  in  times  of  peace  or  war. 

What,  after  all,  he  asked,  was  this  power,  but  a  power  to 
protect  the  labor  of  this  country  from  being  bound  down  and 
paralyzed  by  the  pauper  labor  of  foreign  nations  ?  The  only 
question  could  be  whether  the  nation  or  the  States  should 
have  the  power  of  thus  protecting  domestic  labor  j  and  argu- 
ing from  the  analagous  powers  delegated  by  the  Constitu- 
tion— the  taxing  power,  treaty  power,  and  power  to  make 
peace  or  war,  as  well  as  every  other  accorded  to  the  General 
Government — he  maintained  that  the  protective  •  Awer  be- 
longed to  the  same  delegated  agency,  and  was  to  be  found 
in  the  taxing  power  and  the  power  to  regulate  commerce. 
He  reiterated  that  this  power  was  demanded  by  the  peo- 
ple in  the  formation  of  the  new  Constitution,  and  referred  to 
the  processions  of  trades  convened  to  celebrate  as  a  jubilee 
the  insertion  of  this  power  to  regulate  commerce  in  the  Con- 
stitution, as  a  full  and  satisfactory  protection  of  their  inter- 
ests. [See  page  18.]  He  also  referred  to  the  debates  of  the 
Convention,  to  show  that  the  strongest  arguments  urged 
against  the  old  Confederation  was  its  inability  to  give  ample 
protection  to  home  industry,  in  consequence  of  not  being  in- 
vested with  the  power  to  regulate  commerce. 

Arguments,  to  any  extent,  from  our  most  eminent  states- 
men, might  be  added  to  the  foregoing  ;  but  these  are  suffi- 
cient to  show  the  reader  upon  what  authority  protectionists 
affirm  the  power  to  encourage  and  promote  domestic  industry 


Chap. XVIII.]  EXPEDIENCY  OF  PROTECTION  4fQ 


CHAPTER    XVIII. 

The  expediency  of  a  protective  tariff.  Community  of  interests  and  diversification 
of  labor.  Authorities  cited.  Effect  of  protection  upon  agriculture.  Jack- 
pon!s  letter  to  Dr.  Colenmn.  Advantages  of  a  home  market.  Effect  of  the  tariff 
on  prices.  Objections  considered.  Protection  to  commerce.  Effect  of  tho 
tariff  upon  revenue. 

WE  consider  next  the  question  of  the  expediency  of  pro- 
tection. It  has  been  shown,  that  the  protective  system  had 
its  origin  in  the  restrictive  policy  of  Great  Britain.  Its  ope- 
ration upon  the  people  of  the  colonies — afterwards  States — • 
was  peculiarly  oppressive  ;  and  relief  could  be  obtained  only 
by  a  change  of  Constitution  which  should  authorize  the  Con- 
gress to  regulate  foreign  trade,  by  imposing  retaliatory  or 
countervailing  duties  upon  the  rival  products  and  navigation 
of  foreign  nations.  And  as  it  will  be  acknowledged  that  no 
other  way  of  regulating  such  trade  has  ever  been  devised, 
tho  utility  of  the  exercise  of  this  power  must  be  admitted. 
The  history  of  the  Government  shows,  that  among  its  found- 
ers) there  was  but  ono  opinion  as  to  the  propriety  or  expedi- 
ency of  protecting  home  industry  against  the  compedtion 
and  partial  legislation  of  other  nations. 

In  every  discussion  of  this  subject,  it  is  erroneously  as- 
sumed by  the  opponents  of  protection,  that  its  object  is  to 
promote  the  manufacturing  interest  in  particular  ;  and  that 
tho  effect,  though  not  so  intended,  will  necessarily  be  to 
build  up  that  interest  to  the  injury  of  others — to  increase  tho 
woalth  of  the  rich  capitalist  by  taxing  the  poorer  or  the  labor- 
in  g  classes  ;  in  other  words,  to  legislate  money  out  of  the 
hands  of  one  and  the  largest  portion  of  the  community  into 
the  pockets  of  another. 

Protectionists,  on  the  contrary,  hold  to  a  community  of  inter- 
fxts.  They  believe  that  the  labor  of  a  country  should  be  diversi- 
fied— that  the  industrial  interests  should  be  multiplied  ;  that 
the  production  of  all  commodities  should  be  encouraged 
wlich  a  country  is  adapted  to  produce,  or  to  the  production 
of  which  there  is  no  natural  or  other  serious  obstacle  or  im- 
pediment. They  hold  that  ALL  are  entitled  to  the  protection 
of  the  Government ;  that  the  success  of  each  and  every 
branch  of  industry  is  more  or  less  dependent  upon  that  of 

18 


THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  (Chap.  XVIIL 

every  other  ;  and  that  a  system  of  protection  is  practicable 
•which  shall  secure  prosperity  to  all. 

The  reasons  for  favoring  this  diversity  of  human  industry 
are,  first,  that  all  men  are  not  fitted  by  inclination  or  natural 
faculty  for  the  same  pursuit.  This  is  one  of  the  arrange- 
ments of  an  all-wise  and  beneficent  Providence,  and  designed 
fur  the  best  good  of  the  whole  community.  Secondly,  every 
country,  especially  every  country  of  considerable  extent,  is 
capable  of  supplying,  and  hence  we  infer  is  designed  to  sup 
ply,  the  various  wants  of  its  population.  And  it  would  seem 
that  a  common  sense  view  of  the  subject  must  lead  every 
candid  mind  to  the  conclusion,  that  it  is  for  the  interest  and 
safety  of  the  people  of  every  nation  to  avail  themselves  cf 
the  means  which  their  country  affords,  to  supply  themselves 
with  the  necessaries  of  life  and  the  means  of  defense.  By 
this  it  is  not  meant  that  commerce  with  foreign  nations 
should  be  interdicted.  We  believe  that,  while  every  habita- 
ble portion  of  the  earth  is  susceptible  of  being  made  to  fur- 
nish the  means  of  human  subsistence,  the  comforts  of  life  may 
be  greatly  increased,  and  the  general  happiness  of  mankind 
vastly  augmented,  by  commercial  -intercourse  between  na- 
tions. Yet  we  do  not  regard  this  as  a  good  reason  why  a 
nation  should  not  endeavor  to  place  itself  in  a  condition  in 
which  it  may  be  affected,  as  little  as  possible,  by  the  capri- 
cious policy  of  other  nations,  or  the  natural  and  unavoidable 
changes  and  vicissitudes  to  which  they  are  liable. 

Of  the  three  general  branches  of  industry,  agriculture, 
manufactures  and  commerce,  a  peculiar  concern  seems  to  be 
manifested  by  the  opponents  of  a  protective  tariff  for  agricul- 
ture. They  seem  to  suppose  that  the  agricultural  and  man- 
ufacturing interests  necessarily  conflict  with  each  other  ;  or, 
at  least,  that  the  former  is  injured  by  protection  to  the  latter. 
Yet  no  truth  in  political  economy  is  better  established,  than 
that  these  interests  are  inseparably  connected.  No  nation 
wholly  agricultural,  or  wholly  agricultural  and  commercial, 
can  be,  in  any  considerable  degree,  prosperous  and  happy. 
Our  own  country  furnishes  conclusive  evidence  of  the  fact, 
that  agriculture  can  not  prosper  without  manufactures.  It 
was  to  relieve  us  from  a  state  of  dependence  upon  foreign 
nations  for  supplies  of  manufactured  goods,  and  to  provide 
an  additional  market  for  our  surplus  agricultural  products, 
that  the  power  of  the  General  Government  to  encourage  do- 
mestic manufactures  was  created  and  has  been  exercised. 
The  wisdom  of  thus  providing  a  home  market  for  the  products 


Chap.  XVIII J  EXPEDIENCY  OF  PROTECTION.  411 

of  agriculture,  stands  vindicated  by  the  opinions,  not  only  of 
the  most  eminent  statesmen  and  ablest  writers  on  political 
economy  of  our  own  and  other  countries,  but  by  the  practice 
of  every  highly  civilized  and  prosperous  nation.  We  cite  a 
few  authorities  on  this  subject  : 

"  Whatever  tends  to  diminish  in  any  country  the  number 
of  artificers  and  manufacturers,  tends  to  diminish  the  home 
market,  the  most  important  of  all  markets  for  the  rude  pro 
duce  of  the  land,  and  thereby  still  further  to  discourage  agri- 
culture."—  Smith's  Wealth  of  Nations,  vol.  ii.  p.  149. 

"  The  exertion  of  the  husbandman  will  be  steady  or  fluctu- 
ating, vigorous  or  feeble,  in  proportion  to  the  steadiness  or 
fluctuation,  adequateness  or  inadequatencss,  of  the  market 
on  which  he  must  depend  for  the  vent  of  the  surplus  which 
may  be  produced  by  his  labor  ;  and  such  surplus,  in  the  or- 
dinary course  of  things,  will  be  greater  or  le?,s  in  the  same 
proportion.  .  .  .  For  the  purpose  of  this  vent,  a  domestic 
market  is  greatly  to  be  preferred  to  a  foreign  one  ;  because 
it  is,  in  the  nature  of  things,  far  more  to  be  relied  upon." 
— Hamilton's  Report  on  Manufactures. 

11  No  earthly  method  remains  for  encouraging  agriculture 
where  it  has  not  raised  up  its  head,  that  can  be  considered 
efficacious,  but  the  establishing  of  proper  manufactures  in 
those  countries  you  wish  to  encourage.  ...  If  a  manu- 
facture be  established  in  any  rich  and  fertile  country  by  con- 
vening a  number  of  people  into  one  place,  who  must  all  be 
fed  by  the  farmer,  without  interfering  with  any  of  his  neces- 
sary operations,  they  establish  a  ready  market  for  the  produce 
of  his  farm,  and  thus  throw  money  into  his  hands,  and  give 
spirit  and  energy  to  his  culture.  .  .  .  Insurmountable 
obstacles  lie  in  the  way  of  a  farmer  in  an  unimproved  country, 
who  has  nothing  but  commerce  alone  to  depend  upon  for  pro- 
viding a  market  for  the  produce  of  his  farm." — Anderson  on 
National  Industry. 

"  While  the  necessities  of  nations  exclusively  devoted  to 
agriculture  for  the  fabrics  of  manufacturing  states,  are  con- 
stant and  regular,  the  wants  of  the  latter  for  the  products  of 
the  former,  are  liable  to  very  considerable  fluctuations  and 
interruptions.  .  .  .  The  importations  of  manufactured 
supplies  seem  invariably  to  drain  the  merely  agricultural 
people  of  their  wealth.  Let  the  situation  of  the  manufactur- 
ing countries  of  Europe  be  compared  in  this  particular  with 
that  of  countries  which  only  cultivate,  and  the  disparity  will 
be  striking." — Hamilton's  Report  on  Manufactures. 


412  THE    PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVIII 

"  Those  who  wish  to  make  agriculture  flourish  in  any  coun 
try,  can  have  no  hope  of  succeeding,  but  by  bringing  com 
merce  and  manufactures  to  her  aid,  which,  by  taking  from 
the  farmer  his  superfluous  produce,  gives  spirit  to  his  opera 
tions,  and  life  and  activity  to  his  mind." — Anderson  on  Na 
lional  Industry. 

"  A  sound  legislation  on  the  subject  of  duties  on  imports, 
is  the  true  safeguard  of  agricultural  and  manufacturing  in 
dustry." — Chaptal. 

11  Our  agriculturists  want  a  home  market.  Manufactures 
would  supply  it." —  Cooper's  Principles  of  Political  Economy. 

"  Our  country  ought  not  to  remain  dependent  on  foreign 
supply,  always  precarious,  because  liable  to  be  interrupted." 
—  Washington. 

The  promotion  of  manufactures  must  necessarily  create  an 
additional  home  demand  for  the  produce  of  the  farmer.  This 
is  implied  in  every  executive  recommendation,  and  in  every 
effort  to  encourage  manufactures.  The  object  is  to  enable 
those  engaged  in  agriculture  to  obtain  their  supplies  of  man- 
ufactured goods  for  the  products  of  their  labor,  for  which 
there  may  be,  and  generally  is,  an  inadequate  market 
abroad.  And  these  recommendations  will  be  found  in  the 
messages  and  other  writings  of  all  the  earlier  Presidents. 

Never,  perhaps,  was  the  true  object  of  protection  better  or 
more  clearly  expressed  than  by  President  Jackson  in  his  first 
annual  message,  December,  1829  : 

"  The  agricultural  interest,  from  its  connection  with  every 
other,  and  from  its  superior  importance,  deserves  particular 
attention.  It  is  principally  as  manufactures  and  commerce  tend  to 
increase  the  value  of  agricultural  productions,  that  they  deserve  tht 
fostering  care  of  the  Government." 

Five  years  earlier  he  uttered  the  same  sentiment,  more  at 
length,  in  his  letter  to  Dr.  Coleman,  of  April  26th,  1824,  while 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  during  the  pendency 
of  the  tariff  bill  of  that  year,  in  the  passage  of  which  he  took 
an  active  part.  It  deserves  a  place  in  every  work  on  politi- 
cal economy  ;  and,  notwithstanding  our  limited  space,  \vc 
arc  induced  to  insert  a  material  portion  of  it  : 

"  I  will  ask,  what  is  the  real  situation  of  the  agriculturist  ? 
Where  has  the  American  farmer  a  market  for  his  surplus 
products  ?  Except  for  cotton,  he  has  neither  a  foreign  nor 
home  market.  Does  not  this  clearly  prove,  when  there  is  no 
market  either  at  home  or  abroad,  that  there  is  too  much 
labor  employed  in  agriculture  ;  and  that  the  channels  of  labor 


Chap.  XVIII.'  EXPEDIENCY  OF  PROTECTION.  413 

should  be  multiplied  ?  Common  sense  at  once  points  out  the 
remedy.  Draw  from  agriculture  this  superabundant  labor  , 
employ  it  in  mechanism  and  manufactures  ;  thereby  creating 
a  home  market  for  your  bread-stuffs,  and  distributing  labor  to 
the  most  profitable  account  ;  and  benefits  to  the  country  will 
result.  Take  from  agriculture  in  the  United  States  six 
hundred  thousand  men,  women,  and  children,  and  you  will  at 
once  give  a  home  market  for  more  bread-stuff's  than  all  Europe 
now  furnishes  us.  In  short,  sir,  we  have  been  too  long  sub- 
ject to  the  policy  of  the  British  merchants.  It  is  time  that 
we  should  become  a  little  more  Americanized  ;  and  instead  of 
feeding  the  paupers  and  laborers  of  England,  feed  our  own  ; 
or  else,  in  a  short  time,  by  continuing  our  present  policy,  we 
shall  all  be  rendered  paupers  ourselves. 

"  It  is  therefore  my  opinion,  that  a  careful  and  judicious 
tariff  is  much  wanted  to  pay  our  national  debt,  and  afford  us 
the  means  of  defense  within  ourselves,  on  which  the  safety 
of  our  country  and  liberty  depends  ;  and  last,  though  not 
least,  give  a  proper  distribution  to  our  labor,  which  must 
prove  beneficial  to  the  happiness,  independence,  and  wealth 
of  the  community." 

The  operation  of  the  policy  then  adopted,  and  matured  and 
strengthened  by  several  successive  tariffs,  has  fully  verified 
the  statements  of  this  letter.  The  domestic  market  created 
by  the  establishment  of  manufactures  has  long  been  of  more 
value  to  the  farmers  of  the  United  States  than  all  the  foreign 
markets  of  the  world.  And  it  is  confidently  believed,  that  by 
no  other  means  could  agricultural  industry  be  so  effectually 
invigorated,  or  agricultural  wealth  so  rapidly  and  so  surely 
increased,  as  by  such  a  modification  of  the  tariff  as  should 
give  to  manufacturers  a  protection  equal  to  that  which  was 
afforded  by  the  act  of  1842. 

'  Is  it  good  policy  for  the  farmer  of  Illinois  or  Iowa  to  trans- 
port his  wheat  a  distance  of  4,000  miles  to  a  market,  and  to 
transport  in  return,  the  same  distance,  the  cloths,  the  hard- 
ware, and  the  iron  received  in  exchange  for  his  wheat,  or 
purchased  with  the  avails  ?  The  common  sense  policy  of 
Gen.  Jackson,  as  well  as  that  of  Jefferson,  was  to  "  plant  tho 
manufacturer  by  the  side  of  the  farmer."  Men,  in  general, 
act  upon  this  principle.  Where  is  the  man  wishing  to  in- 
vest his  capital  in  agriculture,  who  would  not  be  governed 
by  the  consideration  of  proximity  to  a  good  market  ?  Nor 
would  it  be  with  him  the  controlling  question,  whether  the 
money  price  of  the  goods  manufactured  in  his  neighborhood 


414  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVIIL 

is  or  is  not  higher  than  that  of  similar  goods  brought  across 
the  Atlantic,  arid  which  he  would  have  to  pay  for  from  the 
avails  of  his  wheat  which  has  been  subjected  to  freight  and 
charges  equal  to  one-half  or  more  of  its  value.  His  coat  or 
his  boots  of  domestic  manufacture,  though  enhanced  in  price 
by  an  amount  equal  to  the  thirty  per  cent,  duty  by  which  it 
is  protected,  would  still  be  cheaper  than  the  foreign  article 
duty  free. 

But  it  must  be  considered,  that  a  large  portion  of  the  lands 
of  every  country — almost  of  every  farm — is  not  adapted  to 
the  culture  of  wheat  ;  and  the  coarse  grains  will  not  admit 
of  transportation  to  a  foreign  market.  Admit  that  these  may 
be  converted  into  beef  and  pork  which  will  bear  transporta- 
tion a  greater  distance.  It  is  still  true,  that  there  is  no  ade- 
quate foreign  market.  Notwithstanding  the  large  consump- 
tion of  grain  and  provisions  by  those  engaged  in  the  manu- 
factories of  various  kinds,  and  all  who  are  supported  by  their 
labor,  the  surplus  exceeds  the  foreign  demand,  and  might  be 
largely  increased.  But  break  down  these  establishments 
which  have  been  brought  into  existence  and  sustained  by 
protection,  and  compel  those  who  are  now  merely  consumers 
to  become  also  producers  of  agricultural  products,  thus  not 
only  contracting  the  home  market,  but  increasing  the  super- 
abundant and  unsalable  surplus,  and  how  long  would  the 
mass  of  our  people  have  the  ability  to  buy  foreign  manufac- 
tures at  any  price  ? 

But  there  is  still  another  consideration — one  of  no  small 
importance,  but  which  seems  to  be  either  overlooked,  or  not 
duly  appreciated  by  those  who  commend  to  us  the  foreign  in 
preference  to  the  home  market.  The  farmer  who  resides  in 
the  vicinity  of  a  manufacturing  village  finds  a  market  not 
on\y  for  large  quantities  of  his  coarse  grains,  but  for  the 
more  bulky  products  of  his  farm  and  garden,  for  which  there 
would  otherwise  be  no  demand  at  all.  Let  but  one-half  of  the 
unimproved  water-falls  in  our  country  be  employed  in  the 
various  manufactures  of  wool,  cotton,  iron,  wood,  &c.,  and 
millions  of  dollars  would  be  added  to  the  annual  profits  of 
agricultural  labor,  from  the  sale  of  products  which  are  now 
almost  worthless.  For  an  example  illustrating  the  advan- 
to  the  farmer  of  a  prosperous  manufacturing  town 
within  a  convenient  distance,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the 
account,  in  a  preceding  chapter,  of  the  Steubenvillu  factory. 
[See  pages  185,  190.] 

In  calculating   the   benefits  derived  by  agriculture  from 


Chap.  XVIII.]  EXPEDIENCY  OF  PROTECTION.  415 

manufactures,  it  is  not  'sufficiently  considered,  that  the  im- 
portation of  manufactured  goods  is  virtually  the  importation, 
to  a  considerable  extent,  of  the  products  of  agriculture.  The 
bread,  and  meat,  and  other  food,  consumed  by  those  employ- 
ed in  the  manufacture,  is  paid  for  by  the  American  farmer  in 
the  purchase  of  the  goods,  and  the  market  for  his  own  pro- 
ducts diminished.  This  has  been  well  illustrated  in  a  former 
chapter.  [See  speeches  of  Mallary  and  Stewart  on  the  wool- 
ens bill  of  1827,  pages  185,  190.] 

The  advantage  of  a  foreign  market  has  been  too  highly  ap- 
preciated. For  many  years  the  existence  of  the  British  corn 
laws  was  deeply  deplored  ;  and  every  agitation  of  the  ques- 
tion of  their  repeal,  excited  no  little  interest  in  this  country. 
Yet,  after  the  passage  of  the  repeal  bill  in  184G  had  been 
rendered  nearly  certain,  the  arrival  of  the  news  caused  no 
material  advance  in  the  prices  of  wheat  and  flour  in  the 
United  States.  Western  flour  was  sold  in  New  Orleans  for 
$2  50  per  barrel.  In  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  the  price 
of  wheat  was  88  cents  per  bushel,  and  of  flour,  by  the  cargo, 
less  than  $4  per  barrel  ;  and  in  New  Y"ork  but  little  higher. 
The  extraordinary  failure,  in  Europe,  of  the  crop  of  the  pre- 
ceding year,  caused,  soon  afterwards,  an  extraordinary  for- 
eign demand  for  bread-stuffs  to  prevent  starvation,  which 
did  actually  occur  to  some  extent  in  Ireland.  But  time  has 
proved  what  had  often  been  stated  by  the  advocates  of  a 
home  market,  that  from  the  cheaper  production  of  wheat  in 
Northern  Europe,  the  American  fanner  would  be  disappoint- 
ed in  the  expected  benefits  from  the  opening  of  British  ports 
to  foreign  wheat. 

But  even  if  there  were  a  market  abroad  for  our  surplus 
bread-stuffs,  would  it  be  good  policy  to  rely  upon  that  mar- 
ket, ever  uncertain,  because  liable  to  sudden  changes  from 
over  production  or  adverse  legislation  ?  Does  not  the  Amer- 
ican farmer  derive  a  two-fold  advantage  from  a  home  market 
created  by  manufactures  ?  In  the  first  place,  he  saves  the 
cost  of  transportation  to  a  distant  market  ;  and  secondly, 
there  being  a  less  number  of  producers,  the  surplus  will  be 
less,  and,  consequently,  the  price  higher.  There  were  im- 
ported during  the  year  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  tariff  act 
of  1846,  cotton  goods  to  the  amount  of  about  $13,000,000, 
when  flour,  as  has  just  been  stated,  was  worth  only  about  $4 
a  barrel  at  our  sea-board,  and  half  that  price  in  the  Western 
States.  Now  if  a  sufficient  number  of  the  producers  of  flour 
had  been  taken  from  that  employment  to  make  cotton  goods 


416  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  .         [Chap.  XVI. 

to  the  amount  of  those  imported,  is  it  not  probable  that  the 
farmer  would  have  received  a  higher  price  for  his  flour  ? 

But  the  market  for  the  grain,  meat,  and  other  agricultural 
products  required  for  the  subsistence  of  those  engaged  in 
manufactures,  is  but  one  of  the  advantages,  to  the  agricultu- 
rist, of  the  protective  system  :  the  demand  created  for  the 
raw  materials  is  a  result  scarcely  less  important.  The  do- 
mestic market  for  the  article  of  wool  alone  contributes  largely 
to  the  aggregate  profits  of  agricultural  labor.  A  great  por- 
tion of  our  land  is  not  adapted  to  the  production  of  grain, 
but  is  well  suited  to  the  raising  of  wool  ;  and  but  for  the 
home  demand  for  this  product,  much  of  the  land  devoted  to 
sheep  husbandry  would  be  of  comparatively  little  value. 
There  were,  in  1842,  in  the  United  States,  according  to  the 
best  calculations,  34,000,000  sheep,  worth  $70,000,000,  re- 
quiring 11,000,000  acres  of  land  for  their  keeping,  the  value 
of  which,  at  $10  per  acre,  is  $110,000,000  ;  making  the  ag- 
gregate capital  employed  in  sheep  husbandry,  $180,000,000. 
The  annual  crop  was  estimated  at  90,000,000^  pounds,  worth 
$40,000,000.  The  destruction  of  the  market  for  wool  by  the 
free  introduction  of  foreign  woolens,  would  have  been  a  seri- 
ous blow  to  agriculture.  Much  ot  the  land  appropriated  to 
the  production  of  wool  must  have  been  devoted  to  tillage, 
swelling,  to  a  vast  amount,  the  surplus  of  grain,  already  too 
great  for  the  demand.  The  importations  of  woolen  goods 
amounted,  at  the  same  time,  to  $13,000,000  annually  ;  of 
hempen  and  flaxen  goods,  to  $5,485,000.  The  supplying  of 
the  raw  materials  of  these  manufactures  would  have  add<?d 
considerably  to  the  value  of  the  home  market  for  the  products 
of  agriculture. 

We  have  remarked,  that  the  supposed  tendency  of  the  en- 
couragement of  manufactures  to  injure  agriculture,  is  one  of 
the  principal  objections  urged  against  the  protective  system. 
We  notice  among  the  resolutions  passed  at  an  anti-tariff  meet- 
ing held  in  Boston,  in  1820,  one  in  which  the  leading  men  of 
that  city  gavely  resolve  that  they  "  are  incapable  of  discov- 
ering its  [the  tariff's]  beneficial  effects  on  agriculture,  since 
the  obvious  consequence  of  its  adoption  would  be,  that  the 
farmer  must  give  more  than  he  now  does  for  all  he  buys,  and 
receive  less  for  all  he  sells." 

To  this  it  is  replied,  that  it  was  the  want  of  an  adequate 
market  that  rendered  tho  encouragement  of  manufactures  ne- 
cessary. It  was  the  want  of  a  market  abroad  for  the  farm- 
er's products  that  induced  the  attempt  to  provide  for  him  a 


Chap.  XVIII.J  EXPEDIENCY  OF  PROTECTION.  417 

home  market.  The  low  price  of  grain  and  flour  at  that  time 
is  well  remembered,  and  has  been  already  mentioned.  The 
demand  was  unequal  to  the  supply  ;  and  the  object  was  to 
build  up  a  new  interest,  with  the  view  of  equalizing  the  sup- 
ply and  the  demand. 

As  capitalists  were  too  prudent  to  venture  their  money  in 
a  new  business  in  competition  with  foreign  rivals  wielding 
immense  capitals,  manufactures  could  not  be  established 
without  governmental  aid.  And  if  a  greater  portion  of  the 
people  could  not  be  drawn  into  other  employments,  must  not 
agricultural  products  continue  to  depreciate,  if,  indeed,  a 
further  depreciation  were  possible  ?  It  would  seem  that  men 
far  less  wise  than  these  Bostonians,  with  unprejudiced  minds, 
would  have  seen  the  absurdity  of  such  notions  as  are  here 
put  forth.  It  will  not  be  readily  believed,  that,  where  there 
is  already  a  large  surplus,  to  increase  the  number  of  non- 
producers  of  agricultural  products,  should  have  the  effect  of 
lessening  their  price  !  or  that  the  farmer  who  is  furnished 
with  a  domestic  market  in  addition  to  the,  foreign,  is  obliged  to 
sell  at  lower  prices  ! 

Let  it  be  admitted  that  the  farmer,  in  consequence  of  the 
protective  duty,  pays  a  higher  price  for  the  articles  he  buys. 
It  is  contended  that  this  enhancement  of  price  is  more  than 
counterbalanced  by  an  increase  of  the  prices  of  the  products 
of  his  labor.  But  protectionists  then  maintained,  as  they 
now  do,  that  domestic  competition  soon  reduces  the  prices  of 
manufactured  goods.  The  correctness  of  this  theory  has 
been  so  abundantly  proved  by  experiment,  that  the  very 
men  who  formerly  combated,  have  since  embraced  it.  Among 
the  citizens  of  Boston  who  adopted  the  resolution  referred  to, 
was  Mr.  Webster,  who,  a  few  years  later,  became  a  thorougt 
protectionist.  Similar  changes  of  sentiment  have  occurred 
among  our  most  eminent  statesmen  in  every  part  of  th* 
Union. 

It  appears  that,  during  a  period  of  thirty  years  from  181(5, 
protection,  as  a  s}rstem  adapted  to  a  state  of  peace,  received 
its  main  support  from  the  agricultural  States  ;  and  efforts 
have  at  no  time  been  wanting,  on  the  part  of  its  opponents, 
to  persuade  the  farmers  that  a  protective  tariff  was  injurious 
to  them.  In  1828,  a  report  was  issued  by  a  certain  commit- 
tee in  Boston,  inculcating  the  doctrine  of  what  is  called  free 
trade,  and  representing  the  foreign  market  as  all-important  to 
the  farmer.  They  said  :  "If  we  import  foreign  goods,  we 
must  export  domestic  produce  to  pay  for  them  :  in  propor- 

IS* 


413  THE  PROTECTIVE   SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVIII. 

tion  therefore  as  we  import  more  foreign  goods,  we  shall 
create,  by  the  importation,  a  new  demand  for  agricultural 
produce  ;"  and  "there  is  no  class  of  persons  more  interested 
in  resisting  the  prohibitory  or  American  system  than  the 
farmers."  Further  :  "  It  diminishes  the  value  of  the  whole 
produce  of  the  farmer,  by  depriving  him  of  a  market  for  that 
surplus  produce  on  which  his  revenue  mainly  depends." 

In  an  industrial  convention  held  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
in  1842,  the  Committee  on  Agriculture,  by  Hon.  Harmar 
Denny,  of  Pa.,  replied  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Boston  report, 
and  showed  by  facts  and  figures  the  superior  value  of  the 
domestic  market.  The  demand  in  England  for  wheat  could 
be  more  cheaply  and  more  quickly  supplied  from  Northern 
Europe.  Although  our  population  had  increased  from  3,921,- 
426  in  1790,  to  17,069,453  in  1840,  having  quadrupled  in  50 
years,  and  many  millions  of  fertile  new  lands  had  been 
brought  under  cultivation  ;  and  although  the  countries  with 
which  we  had  the  greatest  commercial  intercourse  had  also 
increased  in  population — Great  Britain,  for  example,  from 
10,942,646  in  1801,  to  18,664,761  in  1841— and  their  capacity 
to  consume  the  products  of  agriculture  had  also  largely  in- 
creased ;  yet,  during  this  long  period  of  50  years,  in  our  ex- 
ports of  flour  there  had  been  no  increase.  During  the  four 
years  from  1791  to  1794,  inclusive,  we  exported  the  average 
quantity  of  841,198  barrels  of  flour  annually,  besides  about 
4,000,000,  bushels  of  wheat  ;  [the  latter,  probably,  not  annu- 
ally but  during  the  whole  four  years  ;]  and  during  four 
Tears  ending  September,  1840,  the  average,  annually,  of 
396,883  barrels.  The  exports  of  beef  had  fallen  off  more 
than  one-half ;  and  the  exports  of  pork  had  slightly  increased  ; 
thus  showing,  on  the  whole,  a  diminution  of  exports. 

The  protective  policy  was  superseded  by  the  compromise 
act  of  1833,  which  took  effect  on  the  1st  of  January,  1834  ; 
yet  during  the  seven  years  ensuing,  there  were  exported  only 
5,707,680  barrels  of  flour,  to  7,421,326  barrels  exported  dur- 
ing the  preceding  seven  years.  In  the  exports  of  beef  and 
pork,  the  falling  off  during  the  same  period  was  proportion- 
ally still  greater.  The  amount  of  this  decrease  in  exports 
of  the  three  articles  during  the  seven  years,  was  estimated 
at  upwards  of  $13,000,000.  Thus  did  experience  refute  the 
proposition,  that,  "  in  proportion  as  we  import  more  foreign 
poods,  we  shall  create,  by  the  importation,  a  new  demand 
fcr  our  agricultural  produce." 

Agriculture,  that  great  interest  for  which  so  much  concern 


Chap.  XVIII.]  EXPEDIENCY  OF  PROTECTION.  419 

has  been  expressed  by  anti-protectionists,  has  not  been  over- 
looked in  framing  our  tariffs  which  have  been  intended  for 
effective  protection.  Such  protection  can  be,  and  has  been, . 
afforded  in  two  ways  :  first,  directly,  by  duties  to  protect  iho 
farmer  from  injurious  competition  with  foreign  labor  in  sup- 
plying1 the  home  market  ;  and  secondly,  indirectly,  by  sc 
protecting  other  interests  as  to  augment  the  demand  fur  ag- 
ricultural products.  The  duty  of  25  cents  a  bushel  on  wheat 
has  afforded  the  requisite  direct  protection  ;  and  the  duties 
upon  foreign  manufactures,  by  which  our  own  have  been  en- 
couraged, have  increased  the  demand  for  the  products  of  ag- 
riculture, by  creating  a  permanent  home  market. 

The  foregoing  facts  and  arguments  can  hardly  fail  to  con- 
vince any  one  of  the  advantage  of  a  home  market  for  the  sur- 
plus products  of  agriculture.  There  are  many,  however,  who 
consider  this  advantage  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the  in- 
creased prices  which  the  farmer,  in  common  with  other  classes 
of  the  community,  is  compelled  to  pay  for  his  manufactured 
goods.  The  facts  already  given  from  the  debates  in  Congress 
and  from  other  sources,  in  confirmation  of  the  arguments  and 
reasoning  in  support  of  the  theory  that  protective  duties 
create  competition  and  reduce  prices,  ought,  perhaps,  to  be 
deemed  a  conclusive  answer  to  this  very  common  objection 
of  the  opponents  of  the  protective  policy.  We  shall,  how- 
ever, present  some  additional  testimony.  We  commence 
with  a  few  extracts  from  the  speech  of  Mr.  Berrien,  a  Senator 
in  Congress  from  Georgia,  to  the  citizens  of  Boston,  in  1844. 
The  views  of  Mr.  Berrien,  may,  perhaps,  in  the  minds  of 
some,  be  entitled  to  the  greater  weight,  from  his  having  be- 
come a  convert  to  the  principles  of  protection  from  facts  and 
reasons  which  he  subsequently  employed  in  its  defense.  He 
said  : 

"  Now,  I  have  before  me  a  statement  of  prices,  made  from 
actual  sales  in  the  cit}7  of  New  York  in  the  years  1840,  '41, 
'42,  '43,  and  '44,  of  raw  cotton  and  of  cotton  manufactures, 
such  as  shirtings,  sheetings,  checks,  ginghams,  calicoes,  drill- 
ings, flannels,  &c.,  which  shows  unequivocally  that  the  prices 
of  these  articles  have  not  been  increased  by  the  operation  of 
the  tariff.  This  is  experience.  A  little  reflection  will  con- 
vince us  that  such  must  be  the  result.  If  a  duty  is  prohibi- 
tory, its  first  operation,  by  excluding  foreign  competition, 
and  leaving  us  to  the  limited  supply  which  our  manufacturers 
could  at  a  moment  furnish,  would  be  to  raise  prices,  unless 
this  state  of  things  should  be  altered  by  Targe  importation* 


420       .  THE  PROTECTIVE  Si'STEM.  |Chap.  XVIIL 

made  in  anticipation  of  the  duty.  I  think,  however,  our 
countrymen,  and  especially  that  portion  of  them  who  aro 
thiefly  engaged  in  manufactures,  have  credit  generally  for 
understanding  their  own  interest,  and  knowing  where  the 
most  profitable  investment  can  be  made.  As  soon,  therefore, 
as  prohibitory  duties  should  have  unduly  increased  the  pro- 
fits of  capital  in  any  branch  of  manufacture,  a  rush  of  capital 
from  other  pursuits  in  which  it  was  less  profitably  employed 
would  take  place  ;  and  this,  with  the  certainty  of  the  homo 
market,  would  occasion  a  reduction  of  prices.  This  in 
abundantly  proved  in  the  case  of  coarse  cottons,  where  the 
duties  are  prohibitory  ;  yet  prices  have  fallen,  and  the  quali 
ty  of  the  article  has  improved. 

"  The  process  of  the  reduction  of  price  where  the  duty  ifi 
raised,  but  not  to  the  extent  of  prohibition,  seem  to  mo 
equally  plain.  Our  principal  dealings  are  with  England. 
Her  manufacturing  energies,  to  which  she  is  so  largely  in- 
debted for  her  greatness,  have  not  yet  been  thoroughly 
developed,  because  she  has  not  yet  found  an  adequate  de- 
mand  for  the  products  of  her  factories.  She  is  at  this  moment 
roaming  about  the  world,  not  seeking  whom  she  may  devour, 
but  whom  she  may  supply.  We  are  important  customers, 
and  can  not  be  spared  When,  therefore,  an  additional 
duty  is  imposed  by  this  Government  on  any  article  of  Eng- 
lish manufacture,  an  article  similar  to  which  is  produced  in 
this  country,  the  manufacturer  in  England  must  consent  to 
part  with  a  portion  of  the  profits  of  capital  which  he  has 
heretofore  received,  to  enable  him  to  compete  with  our  coun- 
try here.  The  American  manufacturer  can  not  raise  his  price 
to  a  sum  equal  to  the  cost  of  production  and  of  the  duty  su- 
peradded,  for  that  would  bring  him  into  a  disadvantageous 
competition  with  his  English  rival  ;  while  the  latter,  to  en- 
able him  to  compete  with  the  American  producer  in  his  own 
market,  must  consent  to  a  reduction  of  prices  by  a  diminution 
of  profits.  This  diminution  of  profits  is  the  price  which  the 
English  manufacturer  pays  for  the  privilege  of  our  market. 
Such  is  the  result  as  between  the  English  and  the  American 
manufacturer.  The  former  is  compelled  to  bear  a  portion  of 
the  burden  imposed  by  the  tariff  to  enable  him  to  enter  into 
competition  with  the  latter  in  his  own  domestic  market. 
How  much  of  what  remains  he  can  throw  upon  the  American 
consumer,  and  how  much  he  can  bear  himself,  depend  upon 
the  state  of  supply  and  demand  in  the  American  market,  and 
upon  the  vi^or  of  the  competition  which  he  encounters  there. 


Chap.  XVIII.}  EXPEDIENCY  OF  PROTECTION.  421 

"  It  is  not  true,  then,  that  the  tariff  of  1842  has  unduly  in- 
creased prices,  or  that  the  duties  which  it  imposes  are  paid 
by  the  consumer.  If  this  were  even  so,  the  burden  would 
fall  most  heavily  upon  those  portions  of  the  Union  which  com- 
plain least,  because  their  consumers  are  most  numerous  ;  the 
population  being  more  dense,  and  the  ability  to  consume 
being  greater.  But  such  is  not  the  fact.  Writers  on  political 
economy  are  appealed  to  in  vain  to  establish  it.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  enter  into  minute  details  of  the  circumstances 
under  which  this  duty  is  divided  between  the  producer  and 
the  consumer.  Some  of  the  writers,  founding  trieir  theories 
on  facts  totally  dissimilar  from,  and  inapplicable  to,  those 
\vhich  exist  among  us,  do  indeed  advocate  the  doctrine  of 
free  trade  ;  and  it  is  this  doctrine  which  is  urged  in  good 
faith  by  the  more  frank  of  our  opponents.  But  what  is  free 
trade  ?  Where  does  it  exist  ?  Where  can  it  exist  ?" 

But  to  evade  the  force  of  the  fact  that  a  reduction  of  price 
has  followed  the  imposition  of  protective  duties,  the  reduction 
is  ascribed  to  other  causes.  It  is  said  that  the  prices  of 
goods  have  fallen  in  other  countries  also,  and  would  have 
fallen  without  the  protective  duties.  It  is  admitted  that,  to 
some  extent,  prices  have  fallen  in  other  countries  ;  but,  re- 
duction abroad  has  been  greatest  upf.n  the  protected  articles.  And  it 
has  invariably  taken  place  at  such  a  time  after  the  imposition 
of  the  protective  duty,  and  under  such  circumstances,  as  to 
prove  that  the  reduction  was  the  effect  of  the  domestic  corn- 
petition  caused  by  such  duty.  And  the  uniform  failure  of  the 
predictions  of  the  opponents  of  our  protective  tariffs,  that 
prices  would  be  increased,  server  to  strengthen  the  convic- 
tion of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  maintained  by  the  advocates 
of  protection  on  this  subject. 

Yet  it  is  urged  that  prices  would  be  still  lower,  but  for  the 
duty.  This  objection  is  answered  by  the  fact,  that  the  con- 
sumers of  those  articles  which  have  been  adequately  protect- 
ed, are  supplied  with  such  articles  at  prices  as  low  as  the 
people  of  those  countries  against  which  the  tariff  operates  are 
supplied  with  similar  articles  of  their  own  manufacture  ;  and 
by  the  additional  fact,  that  the  American  manufacturer  com- 
petes successfully  with  the  foreign  in  any  market  to  which 
they  are  admitted  on  equal  terms. 

Again  :  the  reduction  of  prices  is  attributed  to  the  im- 
provements in  labor-saving  machinery.  This  is  admitted  ; 
but  what  has  caused  this  improvement  in  machinery  ?  This 
question  is  thus  answered  by  Mr.  Hudson,  in  his  report  on 
Manufactures  iu  1844. 


400  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVIII 

"  Protection  created  a  competition,  and  competition  has 
been  the  efficient  cause  of  these  improvements.  The  inventive 
power  which  has  been  exerted  in  perfecting  machinery,  would 
have  slumbered  for  ages  to  come,  as  it  has  for  ages  past, 
had  not  manufactures  been  prosecuted  under  such  brisk  com- 
petition, that  necessity,  which  is  the  mother  of  invention,  de- 
manded the  employment  of  labor-saving  machines.  So  that, 
after  all,  this  reduction  is  to  be  ascribed  to  protection — to 
the  industry  which  it  stimulates,  and  the  .genius  which  it 
excites. 

"  We  admit  that  duties,  self-considered,  all  other  things 
being  the  same  before  and  after  the  imposition  of  the  duty, 
would  increase  prices  ;  but  such  a  case  can  hardly  exist. 
The  very  imposition  of  the  duty  would  effect  a  change.  The 
duty  would  tend  to  check  importations  ;  this  would  create  a 
surplus  in  the  hands  of  the  foreign  manufacturer,  who  would 
reduce  his  price.  The  duty  would  also  induce  our  own  citi- 
zens to  go  into  the  manufacture  ;  and  this  new  competition 
would  have  a  further  tendency  to  bring  down  the  price.  But 
prices  themselves  are  only  relative.  If  the  duty  should  in- 
crease the  price  of  the  articles  10  per  cent.,  and  the  encour- 
agement to  industry  should  increase  the  ability  to  purchase 
to  the  same  extent,  no  additional  burden  would  be  thrown 
upon  the  community." 

But,  it  is  said,  if  duties  tend  to  reduce  prices,  the}7  afford 
no  protection  to  the  manufacturer,  and  are  therefore  unne- 
cessary. An  answer  to  this  argument  has  already  been  giv- 
en in  some  of  the  debates  ;  but  as  it  is  one  which  protection- 
ists have  occasion  frequently  to  meet,  we  will,  at  the  ha//inl 
of  being  considered  tedious  on  this  subject,  give  Mr.  Hud- 
son's illustration  of  this  principle  : 

"  An  article  now  free  from  duty  is  selling  in  our  market 
for  $1  20.  The  elements  which  make  up  this  price  are  these  : 
cost  in  foreign  market,  $1  ;  cost  of  importation,  10  cents  ; 
importer's  profits,  10  cents  ;  making  $1  20.  At  this  price 
the  article  can  be  manufactured  and  sold  in  this  country 
Now,  let  one  of  our  citizens  go  into  the  manufacture  of  this 
article,  and  what  will  be  the  result  ?  Why,  the  foreign  man- 
ufacturer, who  has  heretofore  enjoyed  the  monopoly  of  our 
market,  and  who  is  enjoying  large  profits,  will  immediately 
put  the  article  at  90  cents  to  the  American  importer  ;  this 
being  the  cost  of  the  article.  He  will  willingly  forego  all 
profit  f«»r  the  time  being,  for  the  purpose  of  crushing  the  in- 
fant establishment  in  this  country  ;  and  the  importer  will 


Chap.  XVIII.J  EXPEDIENCY  OF  PROTECTION.  423 

give  up  one-half  of  his  profits  rather  than  lose  this  portion  of 
his  business.  This  will  reduce  the  price  of  the  article  to 
$1  05.  The  American  manufacturer  finds  the  article  in  the 
market  at  this  reduced  price,  which  is,  in  fact,  less  than  he 
can  manufacture  the  article  for.  He  must,  therefore,  aban- 
don his  business,  give  up  his  establishment  at  great  sacrifice, 
and  yield  the  market  to  the  foreign  manufacturer,  who,  find- 
ing his  rival  destroyed,  will  immediately  demand  the  old 
price,  $1  ;  and  the  consumer  in  this  country  will  be  compelled 
to  pay  $1  20  ;  or  perhaps  $1  25,  to  make  up  the  loss  which 
the  importer  and  manufacturer  sustained  during  the  period  of 
competition.  This  is  the  result  when  the  article  is  free  of 
duty. 

"  Now  we  will  take  the  same  article,  at  the  same  price, 
both  in  Europe  and  America,  with  a  protective  duty.  A 
duty  of  15  cents  is  imposed  upon  the  article  to  encourage 
domestic  manufactures.  This,  added  to  the  former  price, 
$1  20,  brings  the  article  up  to  $1  35.  The  foreigner  fears 
the  loss  of  the  American  market,  and  to  prevent  a  surplus  in 
his  own  market,  and  create  a  surplus  here,  he  will  at  once 
put  his  article  at  cost,  90  cents.  The  importer  will  forego 
half  his  profits,  and  take  off  5  cents,  which  will  bring  the  ar- 
ticle down  to  $1  20,  the  very  price  which  it  brought  before 
the  duty  was  imposed.  In  the  mean  time  the  American  man- 
ufacturer produces  the  article,  which  he  can  sell  for  the  same 
price.  Here  then,  the  manufacturer  is  protected,  and  the 
consumer  has  no  additional  price  to  pay.  The  importation 
will  not  be  materially  checked  ;  and  this,  with  the  domestic 
production,  will  create  a  surplus,  which  will  tend  to  a  reduc- 
tion of  the  price.  A  sharp  competition  will  ensue,  and  ne- 
cessity, that  mother  of  invention,  will  bring  out  improve- 
ments in  machinery  ;  so  that  the  article  can  be  procured  at 
a  cheap  rate.  The  skill,  also,  which  is  acquired,  will  enable 
the  manufacturer  to  turn  off  the  article  at  less  expense,  and 
so  afford  it  to  the  consumer  at  a  reduced  price.  Thus  will 
discriminating  duties  protect  the  manufacture  and  cheapen 
the  article." 

It  is  said,  also,  that  all  manufactures  adapted  to  our  cir- 
cumstances will,  without  special  protection,  be  introduced 
and  extended,  as  soon  and  as  far  as  will  promote  the  public 
intetest.  Why,  then,  has  it  not  been  done  ?  What  great  in- 
terest of  this  kind  has  ever  been  thus  established  and  has 
prospered  without  protection  ?  If  among  the  numerous  arti 
cles  extensively  manufactured  in  this  country,  there  are  none 


404  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVIII. 

which  have  not  been  effectually  protected,  it  is  fair  to  pre- 
sume that  their  establishment  is  the  effect  of  protection.  It 
is  deemed  far  better  to  give  an  early  impulse  to  this  impor- 
tant branch  of  national  industry,  than  to  leave  it  to  struggle 
for  a  long  and  indefinite  period  against  large  foreign  capi- 
tals, aided,  too,  by  restrictive  legislation. 

Moreover,  it  is  said,  that  protective  duties  "  favor  great 
capitalists  rather  than  personal  industry  or  the  owners  of 
small  capitals,  and  therefore  do  not  promote  national  indus- 
try." This,  indeed,  was  gravely  resolved,  by  the  Boston 
meeting  before  mentioned  in  this  chapter.  It  is  difficult  to 
imagine  how  any  but  great  capitalists  can  succeed  in  a  corn- 
petition  with  the  immense  capitals  of  old  countries.  The 
same  objection  might  with  equal  propriety  and  force,  be 
brought  against  any  other  important  enterprise.  It  is  by 
large  investments  that  employment  is  given  to  those  who 
have  no  capital.  If  manufactures  were  left  to  persons  of 
small  capitals,  would  they  ever  be  established  ?  or  could  they 
be  established  without  protection  ?  The  smaller  the  capital, 
the  greater  the  need  of  protection. 

One  of  the  principal  objections  to  the  protective  policy  is 
its  supposed  injury  to  commerce.  No  persons,  as  a  class, 
have  more  generally  opposed  the  encouragement  of  manu- 
factures, than  those  interested  in  commerce  and  navigation. 
Yet  no  others  have  been  so  inconsistent  and  illiberal  in  their 
opposition.  Of  all  the  great  interests,  no  other  has  been  so 
effectually  protected  as  the  shipping  interest.  Hence  it  has 
been  called,  and  not  inappropriately,  the  "  pet"  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. The  act  passed  by  the  first  Congress  next  after 
the  act  providing  for  revenue — being  the  second  act  of  a 
general  nature  passed  under  the  present  Government — was 
an  act  imposing  lunnage  duties  to  protect  American  ship- 
ping against  foreign  competition,  and  especially  to  counter- 
act\he  effects  of  the  British  navigation  acts.  [See  pages  24, 
54,  87.]  The  duties  were  continued  for  many  years,  and  sev- 
eral times  raised.  They  were  for  some  time  kept  at  $2  a  tiin 
upon  foreign  vessels.  Still  further  aid  was  given  to  this  in- 
terest by  several  of  our  tariff  acts,  by  which  duties,  higher 
by  10  and  20  per  cent.,  were  imposed  upon  certain  goods  im- 
ported in  American  vessels. 

The  trade  with  the  British  colonies  and  islands  has,  at 
times,  at  the  urgent  solicitation  of  the  merchants,  been 
secured  to  American  shipping,  by  acts  absolutely  closing  our 
ports  to  British  shipping-.  Our  foreign  trade  generally  has 


Chap.  XVIII.J  COMMERCE  PROTECTED.  495 

been  protected  by  discriminating  duties  of  $1  a  tun  on  for- 
eign, and  6  cents  a  tun  on  American  vessels  ;  so  that  a  for- 
eign ship  of  300  tuns  burthen  paid  §300  tunriage  duty,  and 
one  of  our  own  of  the  same  burthen,  $18.  At  cms  time,  to 
countervail  an  unreasonable  French  tunnage  duty  of  $18  a 
tun,  Congress,  in  answer  to  the  petitions  of  commercial  men, 
imposed  a  prohibitory  duty  of  the  same  amount  upon  French 
shipping,  by  which  France  was  induced  to  remove  her  unjust 
and  odious  restrictive  duty. 

Our  coasting  trade — an  interest  not  less  important  than 
the  foreign  trade — was,  by  various  acts  of  Congress,  se- 
cured to  our  shipping,  which  enjoyed  a  complete  monopoly. 
Yet  with  all  this  special  legislation  in  their  favor,  this  class 
of  our  citizens  have  been  clamorous  for  free  trade.  And  it  is 
remarkable,  that,  amidst  all  the  denunciations  from  the  South 
against  the  protection  of  the  manufacturing  interest,  no  note 
of  remonstrance  has  been  uttered  against  the  protection  of 
commerce.  It  is  true,  that,  for  many  years,  discriminating 
duties  have  been  removed  from  the  vessels  of  those  nations 
which  have  become  willing  to  admit  our  vessels  into  their 
ports  on  equal  terms  with  their  own.  But  this  reciprocity 
was  not  offered  nor  consented  to  on  the  part  of  our  Govern- 
ment until  our  navigation  had  become  so  firmly  established 
as  to  be  able  to  maintain  a  successful  competition  with  that 
of  other  nations. 

Custom-house  credits,  or  credits  on  the  duties  levied  on  im- 
ports, were  also  intended  for  the  benefit  of  those  engaged  in 
commerce.  These  credits  were  increased,  in  point  of  time, 
until  the  period  was  extended  in  some  cases  to  eighteen 
months,  thus  enabling  the  importer  virtually  to  double  his 
capital  and  to  make  two  voyages  on  the  duties  thus  credited. 

The  fisheries,  too,  have  received  most  effectual  protection. 
Large  sums  have  been  paid  to  Eastern  merchants  in  the  shape 
of  bounties  on  fishing.  Yet  neither  against  the  protection  of 
this  interest  has  there  been  any  serious  opposition  from  the 
advocates  of  free  trade. 

Of  course,  the  friends  of  the  protection  of  manufactures  do 
not  complain  of  the  favor  shown  by  the  Government  to  com- 
merce or  any  other  interest.  They  regard  the  various  inter- 
ests of  the  country  as  equally  entitled  to  the  protection  of 
the  Government,  believing  that  protection  to  one  is  likely  to 
benefit  the  others.  They  believe,  too,  that,  as  has  already 
been  observed",  diversifying  labor,  or  multiplying  the  number 
of  industrial  pursuits  or  objects  of  labor,  is  one  of  the  most 


426  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVII I. 

effectual  means  of  promoting-  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  a 
nation.  A  people  whose  industry  is  confined  principally  to 
agriculture,  or  any  other  single  pursuit,  or  to  a  very  few  ob- 
jects of  labor,  can  not  be  truly  independent,  or  highly  pros- 
perous. The  various  branches  of  manufacture,  and  tho  me- 
chanic arts,  open  a  wide  field  of  industrial  labor,  which  should 
not  be  suffered  to  remain  unoccupied.  [Set  Hamilton's  report. 

One  of  the  great  benefits  resulting  from  the  encourage- 
ment of  manufactures,  is  that  arising  from  the  increased 
power  of  production  by  the  use  of  machinery.  Whatever 
enables  one  person  to  perform  the  labor  of  ten,  twenty,  fifty, 
or  a  hundred  persons,  contributes  greatly  to  the  wealth  and 
power  of  a  nation.  This  argument  has  been  ably  presented, 
and  not  to  be  here  repeated.  \Cla-fs  speech  in  1824,  and  oth>rs.~] 

The  condition  of  a  people  is  believed  to  be  the  most  hap- 
py and  prosperous  when  those  of  the  different  occupations 
are  united  in  one  common  pursuit,  with  no  rival  feeling  b-> 
tween  them  but  that  which  shall  effect  the  most  for  the  good 
of  all.  The  following  admirable  remark,  made  nearly  a  hun- 
dred years  ago,  by  a  distinguished  patriot,  [James  Otis,]  is 
deemed  appropriate  in  this  place  : 

"  The  tradesman  and  the  husbandman  would  do  well  to 
consider,  that  when  they  are  for  cramping  trade,  they  are 
for  killing  a  faithful  servant  who  is  toiling  day  and  night,  and 
eating  the  bread  of  care,  for  their  sake  as  well  as  his  own. 
The  merchant  and  the  gentleman  would  do  well  to  reflect, 
that  the  hands  of  the  tradesman  and  the  husbandman  are 
their  employers,  and  that  unless  they  increase  and  multiply 
in  their  commodities  and  riches,  the  merchant  will  never 
flourish.  The  merchant,  the  tradesman,  and  freeholder, 
should  consider  themselves  as  the  most  immediate  and  nat- 
ural brothers  in  the  community;  that  God  and  nature  Are 
made,  their  interests  inseparable,;  and  when  they  will  agree  con- 
jointly, no  mortal  hand  can  ever  prevail  against  them." 

In  conceding  the  claims  of  commerce  to  protection,  in  com- 
mon with  the  other  industrial  interests,  it  does  not  follow 
that  duties  are  to  be  laid  with  special  reference  to  the  ir- 
crcase  of  our  foreign  trade.  Few,  it  is  presumed,  would  ad- 
vocate the  policy  of  importing  for  the  purpose  of  augmnnt 
in£  the  profits  of  those  engaged  in  such  trade.  Nor  do  \v  > 
believe  that  such  policy  would  prove  to  be  the  most  benefi- 
cial, ultimately,  to  commerce  itself.  Every  interest,  com- 
merce not  excepted,  is  dependent  upon  other  interests.  The 
legitimate  business  of  commerce  is  to  effect  the  exchanges  of 


Chap.  XVIII. J  EXPEDIENCY  OF  PROTECTION  427 

productions  between  different  countries,  and  between  the  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  same  country.  Any  measure,  therefore, 
which  seriously  affects  agricultural  and  manufacturing  or 
mechanical  industry,  will  eventually  injure  commerce. 
Hence,  .1  tariff  should  be  so  constructed  as  to  increase  the 
products  of  agricultural  and  manufacturing  industry  to  the 
greatest  extent  compatible  with  the  general  welfare,  leaving 
to  commerce,  duly  protected,  the  business  of  effecting  the 
exchange  of  these  productions.  Such  a  tariff  would  prevent 
those  fluctuations  in  business  and  those  pecuniary  pressures, 
which  have  so  frequently  occurred,  and  secure  permanent 
prosperity  to  all  the  leading  interests  of  the  country.  These 
desirable  objects  are  effected  thus  : 

In  the  first  place,  a  judicious  tariff,  by  diversifying  labor, 
or  multiplying  the  industrial  employments,  increases  the  pro- 
ductiveness of  a  nation,  and  consequently  the  business  of 
commerce.  And,  though  foreign  commerce  should  not  always 
be  proportionally  increased,  or  even  if  it  should  be  in  some 
measure  diminished,  this  diminution  would  be  amply  compen- 
sated by  an  augmentation  of  the  internal  trade.  In  the  next 
place,  a  well  adjusted  tariff  prevents  excessive  importations 
which,  by  draining  the  country  of  its  specie,  cause  a  derange- 
ment of  the  currency,  with  its  usual  concomitant  evils,  stag- 
nation of  business  and  general  financial  embarrassment. 
Practical  men  have  long  regarded  over-importations  as 
causes  of  those  crises  in  the  money-market  which  have  proved 
so  prejudicial  to  commerce  as  well  as  other  branches  of  in- 
dustry. 

This  doctrine  finds  a  practical  illustration  in  the  operation 
of  the  tariffs  of  1842  and  1846.  The  effect  of  the  former,  as 
we  have  seen,  [Chap,  xiii,]  \vas  to  revive  the  business,  and 
reinvigorate  the  productive  power  of  the  nation.  While  it 
prevented  excessive  importations,  it  did  not  diminish  them. 
After  the  first  year  of  its  operation,  importations  gradually  in- 
creased with  tJie  increase  of  the  ability  of  the  people  to  pay  for  them. 
And  such  were  the  steadiness  and  uniformity  of  its  operations, 
that  the  annual  revenue,  during  the  last  three  years  of  its 
existence,  varied  in  amount  but  a  few  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars. Very  different  were  the  results  of  the  system  estab- 
lished by  the  tariff  of  1846,  a  description  of  which  having 
been  given,  its  repetition  is  unnecessary.  [See  Chap,  xvi.] 
The  effects  of  that  tariff  are  still  felt  ;  and  although  there 
may  be  an  occasional  temporary  improvement  in  the  state  of 
the  country  without  a  thorough  revision  of  it,  it  is  confidently 


428  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XVIIL 

believed,  that  permanent  relief  to  the  country  will  not  be  found 
until  it  shall  be  so  modified  as  to  interpose  an  effectual 
check  to  immoderate  importation,  and  increase  the  demand 
for  labor  by  additional  protection  to  the  depressed  and  de- 
clining' branches  of  domestic  industry. 

It  remains  for  us  to  speak  of  protection  in  relation  to 
revenue.  That  a  tariff  of  duties  may  be  either  too  high  or 
too  low  to  produce  a  given  amount  of  revenue,  will  scarcely 
be  disputed.  Whether,  therefore,  an  act  will  produce  the 
necessary  amount  of  revenue,  the  most  experienced  and  sa- 
gacious statesmen  can  not  always  foretell.  Hence,  every 
tariff  bill  intended  to  be  protective,  has  been  opposed  from 
the  supposition  that  the  proposed  duties  were  too  low  or  too 
high  to  yield  an  adequate  revenue.  It  is  argued  that,  by  high 
duties,  a  large  portion  of  the  people  will  be  induced  or  com- 
pelled to  dispense  with  many  articles  of  foreign  growth  or 
manufacture  ;  and  that,  with  the  consequent  diminution  of 
imports,  the  revenue  also  must  necessarily  be  diminished. 
But  such  a  result  depends  upon  at  least  two  circumstances. 
The  amount  of  our  importations  is  affected,  in  a  great  mea- 
sure, by  the  ability  of  the  people  to  purchase.  When  they 
are  prosperous,  they  will  buy  more  at  high  prices,  than  they 
will  buy  at  lower  prices,  when,  from  the  want  of  protection, 
labor  is  not  adequately  rewarded.  Again,-  the  price  of  a  pr> 
tectcd  article  is  seldom  increased,  even  temporarity,  to  the 
full  amount  of  the  duty  imposed.  If  the  foreign  manufacturer 
has  enjoyed  the  monopoly  of  our  market,  and  has  thus  been 
enabled  to  control  the  price,  it  is  presumed  that  he  has  real- 
ized large  profits  ;  and  whether  to  meet  the  limited  means 
of  the  people  to  buy  his  goods,  or  the  domestic  competition 
produced  by  the  protecting  duty,  he  will  be  compelled  to  re- 
duce the  price  to  the  American  importer  to  an  amount  nearly 
or  quite  equal  to  that  of  the  duty. 

We  have  observed  that  it  would  be  impolitic  to  encourage 
importations /or  the  purpose  of  increasing  the  profits  of  c  >m- 
merco.  No  less  questionable  is  the  policy  of  importing  for 
the  sake  of  revenue  ;  in  other  words,  of  buying  more  goods 
abroad  than  we  can  conveniently  pay  for,  for  the  purpose  or 
privilege  of  being  taxed  on  them  for  raising  money  to  pay 
the  expenses  of  the  Government.  If  a  tariff  could  not  be  de- 
vised or  agreed  upon  which  should  raise  a  revenue  equal  to 
the  necessary  public  expenditures  without  excessive  impor- 
tations, would  it  not  be  far  wiser,  in  order  to  supply  the 
Email  deficiency,  to  have  resource  to  direct  taxation,  as  has 


Chap  XVIII.]  EXPEDIENCY  OF  PROTECTION.  429 

been  done  several  times  under  the  present  Government  ? 
This  mode  of  taxation  requires  every  man  to  pay  according 
to  his  ability,  and  ought  not  to  be  objected  to  by  those  who 
contend  that  duties  necessarily  increase  the  prices  of  the  ar- 
ticles protected. 

The  doctrine  that  duties  are  to  be  laid  with  exclusive  re- 
ference to  revenue  is  not  that  which  was  held  by  the  founders 
of  our  Government.  Nor  did  they  recognize  that  as  the  true 
doctrine  which  allows  a  discrimination  with  a  view  to  the 
protection  of  certain  articles,  in  laying  duties  for  revenue, 
but  denies  the  right  to  lay  duties  for  the  encouragement  and 
protection  of  domestic  industry,  and  to  an  amount  exceeding 
that  which  is  necessary  to  meet  the  actual  wants  of  the  Trea- 
sury. Of  this  we  have  abundant  confirmation  in  the  history 
of  the  causes  which  led  to  the  calling  of  the  Convention 
which  formed  the  Constitution,  and  in  the  subsequent  acts, 
legislative  and  executive,  as  well  as  the  recorded  opinions  of 
the  leading  members  of'  that  Convention,  and  of  a  large 
majority  of  our  most  distinguished  statesmen  and  expounders 
of  the  Constitution  in  later  times. 


430  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIX. 


CHAPTER    XIX. 

Brief  review  of  tke  foregoing  history.    Commercial  policies  of  England,  France, 
Spain,  Germany,  Russia,  Ac.,  compared.     Conclusion. 

To  provide  for  the  common  defense  and  general  welfare  of 
the  United  States,  is  the  great  object  of  our  Constitution.  As 
a  means  to  this  end,  power  is  conferred  upon  the  General 
Government  to  regulate  trade,  both  foreign  and  domestic. 
This,  as  appears  from  our  political  history,  was  the  principal 
moving  cause  that  led  to  the  formation  of  the  present  Consti- 
tution. The  particular  object  of  this  power,  as  we  have  seen, 
was  to  protect  the  people  of  this  country  against  the  opera- 
tion of  the  restrictive  policy  of  foreign  nations,  especially  that 
of  Great  Britain. 

As  has  been  observed,  Congress,  in  pursuance  of  the  joint 
powers  of  taxation  and  protection  granted  by  the  Constitu- 
tion, immediately  passed  the  act  of  1789.  There  being  at 
that  time,  and  for  many  years  afterward,  a  foreign  demand 
for  the  products  of  our  soil,  and  a  portion  of  the  revenue  be- 
ing raised  by  internal  taxation,  lower  rates  of  duty  were  im- 
posed by  that  act  arid  several  acts  which  succeeded  it,  than 
were  found  necessary  at  a  later  period.  Imported  goods 
were  paid  for  chiefly  by  our  cotton,  bread-stuffs,  and  other 
provisions. 

In  1807  commenced  our  commercial  difficulties  with  Great 
Britain  and  France,  by  which  our  trade  was  embarrassed  un- 
til the  close  of  the  war  with  the  former  Power,  in  1815.  Dur- 
ing most  of  this  period,  we  manufactured  largely  for  our- 
selves. The  interruption  of  our  foreign  commerce,  and  the 
double  duties  upon  imported  goods,  afforded  protection  to 
manufactures  ;  and  various  branches  of  manufacturing  were 
successfully  established. 

The  tariff  act  of  1816,  was  the  first  which  had  reference  to 
a  general  state  of  peace.  This  act  is  sometimes  spoken  ot 
as  the  beginning  of  our  protective  system.  It  fell  far  short, 
however,  of  giving  due  protection  to  our  infant  manufactures, 
except  the  article  of  coarse  cottons,  and  a  few  other  articles 
of  minor  importance  ;  the  high  war  duties  under  which  man- 
ufactures had  sprung  up,  having  ceased,  according  to  the 


Chap.  XIX.]  HISTORICAL  REVIEW.  431 

provision  of  the  act  creating  them,  at  the  expiration  of  one 
year  after  the  termination  of  the  war.  Not  only  were  the 
duties  generally  under  the  act  of  1816  too  low  for  protection, 
but  they  were  changed,  in  too  many  instances,  from  specific  to 
ad  valorem,  the  tendency  of  which  to  induce  frauds  by  false 
invoices,  has  been  repeatedly  alluded  to.  There  being  no 
effectual  check  upon  importations,  the  market  was  flooded 
with  foreign  goods  ;  manufactories  were  soon  closed  ;  the  de- 
mand for  labor  was  diminished  ;  the  products  of  the  farmer 
declined  in  price  ;  specie  was  exported  ;  banks  failed  ;  and 
our  foreign  debt  was  greatly  increased. 

In  1820,  an  attempt  was  made  in  Congress  to  alleviate  the 
public  distress,  by  a  revision  of  the  tariff  ;  but  it  was  defeat- 
ed by  the  combined  opposition  of  the  Eastern  and  Southern, 
or  the  shipping  and  the  planting  States.  The  foreign  demand 
for  the  great  Southern  staple,  cotton,  and  the  employment  of 
Eastern  shipping  to  transport  it  to  a  distant  market,  greatly 
moderated  the  pressure  upon  these  sections  of  the  Union, 
while  in  the  agricultural  States  the  effects  of  "  free  trade" 
were  oppressive  in  the  extreme.* 

The  tariff  act  of  1824  was  more  protective  in  its  character, 
though  failing  in  its  operation,  to  fulfill  the  expectations  of 
its  friends.  This  tariff,  too,  was  opposed  by  some  of  the 
Eastern  and  by  the  Southern  States  generally,  and  was 
passed  by  a  very  small  majority,  having  received  its  main 
support  from  the  Middle  and  the  Western  States.  Its 
greatest  defect,  as  was  alleged  by  the  friends  of  protection, 
was  the  ad  valorem  principle  of  laying  duties,  which  prevented 
the  full  measure  of  protection  contemplated  by  the  act,  espe- 
cially to  the  manufacture  of  woolens.  On  the  whole,  it  gave 
but  partial  relief  to  the  country. 

In  1827,  an  effort  was  made  to  remedy  tho  defect  com- 
plained of.  With  this  view,  the  "  woolens  bill"  was  intro- 

*The  term,  free  trade,  in  its  strict  and  literal  sense,  signifies  a  com- 
merce between  nations,  in  which  the  commodities  exchanged  and  the  ves- 
sels in  which  they  are  transported,  are  free  of  duty  ;  or  in  which  goods 
are  subject  to  no  charges  except  those  of  transportation,  port  charges, 
&c.,  leaving  the  Government  to  raise  a  revenue  by  direct  taxation.  But 
the  term  is  more  generally  applied  to  a  trade  in  which  the  rates  of  duty 
are  intended  to  produce  a  revenue  limited  to  the  expenses  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  the  friends  of  which  advocate  ad  valorem  duties  of  nearly  uni- 
form rates  upon  all  articles.  The  term  is  sometimes  used  with  still  great- 
er latitude,  permitting  a  discrimination  in  favor  of  certain  articles  which 
need  protection,  but  by  duties  so  low  as  not  matena'ly  to  check  importa- 
tions. Hence  it  is  seen  that  the  term  is  practically  a  very  indefinite  one. 


432  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIX. 

duced,  of  which  a  history  has  been  given.  But  the  object 
failed.  [Chap.  VIII.] 

The  next  year,  1828,  the  friends  of  the  protective  system 
rallied,  and  passed  an  act  for  a  general  revision  of  the  tariff, 
which  was  the  first  act  passed  since  the  peace  which  seemed 
to  meet  the  wants  of  the  country.  A  state  of  things  followed, 
fthe  reverse  of  that  which  succeeded  the  passage  of  the  act 
of  1816.  Manufactures  at  once  revived  ;  the  demand  for  la- 
bor and  agricultural  products  increased  ;  specie  returned  ; 
the  revenue  was  augmented  ;  and  general  prosperity  was  re- 
stored So  abundant,  indeed,  was  the  revenue,  as  to  justify 
the  exemption  of  tea  and  coffee  and  other  articles  from  duty  ; 
and  the  act  of  1832,  effected  a  material  reduction  of  duties 
on  articles  not  competing  with  those  of  domestic  growth  or 
manufacture. 

By  the  compromise  act  of  1833,  a  radical  change  was  made 
in  the  policy  of  the  Government,  by  the  adoption  of  a  system 
of  ad  valorem  "horizontal  duties,"  which  were  to  be  ultimately 
reduced  to  the  howest  revenue  rates.  The  act  took  effect  in 
1834.  The  reduction  provided  for  by  the  act  was  so  gradual, 
that  no  serious  inconvenience  was  immediately  felt.  The 
usual  effects  of  free  trade  tariffs  were  not  long  delayed. 
Banking  capital  was  rapidly  augmented  ;  large  foreign  debts 
were  contracted  ;  specie  was  exported  ;  and  the  natural,  in- 
evitable consequence,  a  revulsion — a  financial  crisis — fol- 
lowed. Banks  suspended  ;  the  farming,  manufacturing,  and 
industrial  interests  generally  were  prostrated  ;  and  the  Gov- 
ernment, in  the  midst  of  its  war  upon  paper  currency,  was 
itself  again  compelled  to  resort  to  the  issue  of  inconvertible 
paper  in  the  shape  of  treasury  notes. 

In  1842,  the  last  reduction  of  duties  under  the  act  of  1833 
having  been  reached,  and  the  people,  smarting  under  the  ef- 
fects of  a  departure  from  the  protective  policy,  having 
changed  the  administration,  that  policy  was  restored,  the  re- 
sults of  which  have  been  noticed.  [Chapter  XIII.]  The 
prostrate  business  of  the  country  was  revived  ;  and  a  period 
of  solid  prosperity,  seldom  equaled  in  this  country,  was  en- 
joyed, until  after  the  readoption,  in  1846,  of  the  free  trade  or 
revenue  system,  which  was  again  followed  by  results  similar 
to  those  produced  by  the  act  of  1833.  [Chapter  XVI.]  Im- 
portations, during  the  year  ending  June  30th,  1857,  reached 
the  enormous  amount  of  $360,000,000  !  and  our  foreign  in- 
debtedness was  variously  estimated  at  from  300  to  500  mil- 
lions !  The  vast  production  of  tho  California  mines— amount- 


X1X.J  CONSTITUTIONAL   QUESTION  433 

ing  to  hundreds  of  millions — could  no  longer  stay  the  long 
predicted  revulsion  of  1857.  The  scenes  of  1837  and  1842 
were  reproduced  ;  and  although  banks  have  resumed  specie 
payments,  business  has  as  yet  but  partially  recovered  from 
the  shock  ;  nor  is  the  country  likely  to  attain  the  prosperity 
it  enjoyed  under  the  auspicious  operation  of  the  protective 
tariff  of  1842. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  several  crises  which  the  country 
has  experienced,  have  uniformly  occurred  in  low  tariff  or  free 
trade  times  ;  and  that  returning  prosperity  has  as  uniformly 
followed  a  return  to  the  protective  policy.  Is  it  at  all  prob« 
able  that  these  changes  are  the  result  of  mere  accident  ?  Is 
it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that,  under  an  act  similar  to  that 
which  was  superseded  by  the  revenue  act  of  1846,  our  Ian 
guishing  manufactures  would  again  revive,  and  an  increased 
demand  for  mechanical  labor,  and  consequently  for  the  pro- 
ducts of  agriculture,  would  be  created  ?  Let  the  fanner  and 
the  manufacturer,  who  have  been  long  separated,  be  again 
— as  recommended  by  Jefferson — placed  side  by  side,  and 
might  we  not  hope  to  see  the  country  reenter  upon  its  career 
of  prosperity  ? 

During  these  periods  of  comparative  free  trade,  when  the 
producers  and  consumers  have  been  so  widely  separated,  and 
preceding  these  financial  crises,  there  have  been  great  un- 
steadiness in  business  movements,  contractions  and  expan- 
sions in  the  revenue  and  the  currency,  and  extravagant 
speculation  ;  while  the  opposite  results  have  followed  the 
enactment  of  our  protective  tariffs.  Witness  the  effects  of 
thii)  two  systems  upon  our  imports.  Under  the  operation  of 
tbu  tariffs  of  1828  and  1832,  for  the  four  years  before  the 
business  of  the  country  was  sensibly  affected  by  the  compro- 
mise tariff  of  1833,  the  importations  were  as  follows  :  During 
tlui  year  ending  September  30,  1831,  $103,191,124  ;  in  1832, 
$101,029,266  ;  in  1833,  $108,118,311  ;  in  1834,  $126,521,332. 
Under  the  tariff  of  1842  the  importations  were,  in  1844,  $108,- 
4<fl,055;  in  1845,  $117,254,564  ;  in  1846,  $121,691,797  ;  in 
18  47,  $146,545,638.  Here  we  see  that,  as  soon  as  the  people 
hai  begun  to  recover  from  the  effects  of  the  free  trade  tariffs, 
and  as  their  ability  to  purchase  increased,  the  imports  under 
both  these  tariffs  also  gradually  and  regularly  increased. 
The  manufacture  of  cotton  and  woolen  goods  nearly  doubled 
during  this  period,  and  the  production  of  iron  increased  three- 
fold. Hence  the  increased  ability  of  the  people  to  buy  for- 
eign goods. 

19 


434  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIX 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  importations  under  the  revenue 
tariff  of  1846.  In  1850,  they  were  $178,138,318;  in  1851, 
$216,224,932;  in  1854,  $304,562,381  ;  in  1855,  $261,468,520  ; 
in  1857,  $360,890,141  ;  in  1858,  $282,613,150  ;  in  1859,  $338- 
768,130.  The  fluctuation  and  irregularity — the  sudden  in- 
crease and  diminution,  in  the  imports,  during  the  last  period,pre- 
sent  a  striking  contrast  to  the  regular  and  steady  movements 
during  the  two  periods  of  protection.  The  home  market  has 
been  abridged.  The  producer  and  the  consumer  have  been 
separated  at  a  distance  of  from  3,000  to  5,000  miles  ;  and 
from  one-third  to  two-thirds  of  the  value  of  the  products  of 
the  former,  for  the  sale  of  which  he  is  dependent  on  a  foreign 
market,  are  expended  for  freights,  commissions,  storage,  and 
compensation  to  agents  and  middle-men  through  whom  the 
exchanges  are  made.  But  even  at  this  disadvantage,  he 
finds  the  market  too  limited  for  his  surplus  products.  Is  it 
not  strange  that  a  system  productive  of  such  results  should 
find  advocates  in  this  country  ? 

Many  regard  periodical  money  crises  and  commercial  revul- 
sions as  unavoidable — as  the  result  of  undue  expansions  of  a 
paper  currency,  of  over-trading,  speculation,  &c.,  to  which 
the  country  is  necessarily  subject.  These,  however,  are  only 
the  immediate  or  secondary  causes  of  the  evil,  and  are  them- 
selves the  results  of  a  great  first  cause,  viz.,  the  absence  of 
that  policy  which  was  abandoned  in  1846.  In  the  prosperous 
times  succeeding  the  enactment  of  the  protective  tariff  of 
1828,  the  bank  circulation  was  80  millions.  The  average 
circulation  for  four  years  previous  to  the  crisis  of  1837  under 
the  compromise  act,  was  nearly  150  millions.  Again,  under 
the  protective  tariff  of  1842,  the  average  circulation  was 
about  76  millions  ;  and  under  the  free  trade  tariff  of  1846,  it 
was  for  three  years — from  1846,  to  1849 — 113  millions  ;  and 
for  the  two  years  of  1850  and  1851,  143  millions. 

Rcadopt  now  the  policy  established  by  the  act  of  1842, 
and  the  scene  would  be  changed.  Bring  together  again  the 
producers  and  consumers  of  the  products  of  the  earth  ;  em- 
ploy domestic  instead  of  foreign  labor  ;  and  a  steadiness  of 
business  movements  will  reappear,  and  industry  will  be 
again  rewarded.  There  will  be  fewer  incentives  to  specula- 
tion and  fraud,  and  less  necessity  for  the  extension  of  credit ; 
the  tendency  to  overtrading  will  be  restrained  ;  and  the  ex- 
cessive importations  of  goods  and  exportation  of  specie,  and 
the  consequent  derangement  of  the  currency,  will  be  pro 
vented. 


Chap.XIX.J  COMMERCE  PROTECTED.  435 

That  is  held  to  be  a  wrong  principle  in  political  economy, 
which  aims  to  cheapen  all  the  raw  materials  of  manufac- 
tures. It  is  regarded  as  the  true  policy  to  keep  up  the  price 
of  the  raw  products,  and  to  reduce  that  of  the  manufactured 
article  ;  so  as  to  bring  the  raw  material  and  the  manufacture 
as  nearly  as  may  be  to  the  same  price  ;  in  other  words,  to 
diminish,  as  far  as  possible,  the  difference  between  the  prices 
of  the  fabric  and  the  raw  product.  How  is  this  to  be  clone  ? 
Manifestly  thus  :  The  producer  of  the  raw  material  mus* 
have  the  advantage  of  a  near  and  steady  market,  which  is 
of  course,  a  home  market.  To  insure  such  a  market,  the  man. 
ufacturer  must  be  protected  against  foreign  competition 
This  protection  enables  him  to  maintain  his  position  beside 
the  producer  ;  and  the  domestic  competition  induces  or  com- 
pels him  to  invent  and  introduce  improvements  in  machinery 
in  order  to  increase  the  power  and  diminish  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction. The  competition  between  the  manufacturers  for 
the  purchase,  of  the  raw  material,  secures  to  the  producer  a  fair 
price,  and  the  competition  for  the  sale  of  the  manufactured  artit 
de,  enables  him  to  procure  it  at  the  lowest  price  at  which  it 
can  be  afforded  ;  and  thus,  in  consequence  of  the  piotection 
to  domestic  industry,  he  obtains  a  much  greater  quantity  of 
goods  for  the  products  of  his  farm  than  before. 

But,  say  some,  this  policy  injures  commerce.  This,  protec- 
tionists do  not  admit  :  on  the  contrary,  they  hold,  as  has 
been  before  stated,  that  it  lays  the  basis  of  a  healthful  and 
truly  profitable  commerce.  They  do  not  regard  that  com- 
merce as  the  most  profitable,  in  which  products  are  exported 
in  their  crude  and  most  bulky  state,  at  the  greatest  cost  of 
transportation.  A  wiser  policy  is  that  pursued  by  France, 
which  is  to  export  her  wool  and  bread-stuffs  in  the  form  of 
cloth  and  other  fabrics.  According  to  an  intelligent  writer 
and  statistician,  she  exported,  in  1856,  silks,  cloths,  clothing, 
and  other  manufactures  of  the  more  costly  descriptions,  to 
the  amount  of  $300,000,000,  the  weight  of  which  was  less 
than  40,000  tuns,  requiring  for  its  transportation  but  forty 
ships  of  moderate  size  ;  whereas,  the  exports  of  the  United 
States,  consisting  mainly  of  cotton,  flour,  grain,  pork,  fish, 
lumber,  and  other  articles  of  great  bulk  and  weight,  amount- 
ing to  only  $230,000,000,  during  the  same  year,  required  for 
their  transportation  and  that  of  the  goods  received  in  ex- 
change for  them,  not  less,  probably,  than  6,000,000  tuns  of 
shipping,  and  the  labor  of  250,000  persons. 

The  enlargement  of  foreign  commerce  is  too  much  the  ob- 


436  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM  [Chap.  XIX. 

jeci  of  legislation.  It  should  be  more  our  aim  to^increase 
domestic  commerce.  Domestic  commerce  tends  to  the  devel- 
opment of  the  treasures  of  the  earth,  and  to  the  development 
of  human  power.  It  tends  also  to  cheapen  the  commodities 
required  for  the  support  of  man,  arid  to  enhance  the  value  of 
land.  Bespecting  the  importance  of  domestic  commerce,  an 
American  writer  [H.  C.  Carey]  says  : 

"  At  every  stage  of  its  progress,  local  centers  acquire  a 
larger  attractive  power — the  mill,  the  mine,  the  furnace,  the 
rolling  mill,  and  the  grist  and  cotton  mills,  becoming  the 
places  of  exchange,  and  thus  diminishing  the  necessity  for 
resorting  to  the  trading  cities  of  the  world.  The  man  whose 
labors  have  been  given  to  the  production  of  wheat,  is  thus 
ens.bled  to  exchange  directly  with  one  neighbor  who  con- 
verts wheat  into  flour,  and  another  who  has  changed  coal 
and  ore  into  iron  ;  with  one  who  has  converted  wool  into 
cloth,  and  another  who  has  made  rags  into  paper — at  once 
economizing  the  cost  of  transportation,  and  obtaining  the  in- 
tellectual commerce  required  for  enabling  him  to  pass  from 
th<!  cultivation  of  the  poor,  to  that  of  the  richer  soils." 

Domestic  commerce  is  essential  to  free  trade.  It  gives  the 
igriculturist  a  choice  of  markets.  He  may  sell  either  at 
.one  or  abroad.  Dependence  upon  a  foreign  market  alone, 
aroald  place  him  at  the  mercy  of  foreigners,  who  would  have 
it  in  their  power  to  fix  the  prices  both  of  the  products  he  has 
to  uell  and  of  the  goods  he  receives  in  return  ;  and  subject 
iiii.i,  besides,  to  the  enormous  cost  of  transportation  and 
other  charges  incurred  in  the  exchange  of  products.  This 
should  be  considered  by  our  Southern  planters. 

"England  has  more  agency  in  fixing  the  price  of  cottoa 
thin  the  planters  who  produce  it.  They  take  what  she  offers  ; 
and  they  have  always  been  unwilling  the  English  should 
ha  re  a  competition  for  their  cotton.  England  employs  our 
pla.ntcrs  to  produce  raw  cotton  for  her  factories,  for  which 
sh>3  pays  only  that  price  which  competition  among  her  own 
manufacturers  fixes.  England  governs  the  price  and  quan- 
tity. At  the  same  time  she  is  stimulating  the  production 
elsewhere.  There  will  be  cotton  produced  in  other  countries 
for  the  English  factories  long  before  there  will  be  another 
England  to  bid  for  our  cotton.  If  the  cotton  planters  had 
been  as  clear-sighted  in  commercial  matters  as  the  English 
rulers,  there  would  now  be  as  much  or  moro  cotton  manufac- 
tured in  the  United  States  than  in  England."— List's  Pol 
Econ.,  editorial  Note. 


Chap.  XIX..]  DOMESTIC  COMMERCE.    '  431 

Mr.  Carey,  in  one  of  his  letters  to  the  President,  [Mr.  Bu- 
chanan,] cites  a  remark  of  the  latter  made  a  few  years  since, 
which  is  much  to  the  purpose  : 

"  Thirty-one  independent  States,  enjoying-  a  thousand  ad- 
vantages, are  naturally  engaged  in  a  free  trade  with  each 
other.  That  is  the  free  trade  we  want." 

Our  country  embraces  a  great  variety  of  soil  and  of  pro- 
ducts, and  is  therefore  well  adapted  to  internal  commerce. 
One  State  is  favorable  to  the  production  of  cotton,  rice,  or 
tobacco,  another  of  sugar,  another  of  wheat,  another  of  grass  ; 
and  many  of  the  States  are  suited  to  the  growth  of  several 
of  these  staples,  while  not  a  few  abound  in  coal,  iron,  and 
other  minerals.  Yet,  with  all  these  natural  advantages  for  a 
great  internal  trade,  there  is  a  very  limited  interchange  of 
productions.  There  are  States  whose  people  obtain  from  for- 
eign markets  those  kinds  of  goods  with  which  they  might 
and  ought  to  be  supplied  by  their  own  States,  or  those  ad- 
joining. And  with  a  judicious  and  permanent  tariff,  labor 
would  soon  become  so  diversified,  and  the  different  employ- 
ments so  numerous,  as  to  establish  a  most  active  and  vigor- 
ous domestic  commerce.  The  millions  now  annually  paid 
for  the  transportation  of  products  to  a  foreign  market  would 
be  saved  ;  and  the  people  would  learn  practically  the  bene- 
fits of  real  free  trade. 

At  present,  the  commerce  of  State  with  State  is  small. 
Were  the  people  of  Illinois  enabled  to  develop  the  vast  de- 
posits of  coal  and  iron  which  that  State  contains,  and  thus 
to  call  to  their  aid  the  wonderful  advantages  of  steam,  the  in- 
eernal  commerce  of  the  State  would  grow  rapidly  ;  a  market 
for  the  products  of  its  soil  would  be  created  ;  and  their  pro- 
ducers would  be  enabled  to  become  large  consumers  of  cot- 
ton. Cotton  mills  and  manufactories  would  be  built,  and 
bales  of  cotton  wool  would  travel  up  the  Mississippi  to  be 
exchanged  for  the  iron  required  for  the  roads  of  Arkansas 
and  Alabama,  arid  for  the  machinery  of  cotton  and  sugar 
mills  in  Texas  and  Louisiana.  Similar  effects  would  be  wit- 
nessed in  every  quarter  of  the  Union. 

"  A  century  since,  England  was  engaged  in  robbing  her 
soil,  and  exporting  it  in  the  form  of  raw  materials,  to  be  sold, 
and  at  the  lowest  prices,  to  the  manufacturing  communities 
of  the  lower  Rhine.  The  more  the  soil  became  impoverished, 
and  the  less  its  yield,  the  lower  became  the  prices  ;  and 
hence  arose  the  boast  among  the  German  cities,  that  they 
bought  from  the  Englishman  the  skin  of  the  fox  for  a  groat, 


433  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIX. 

and  then  re-sold  him  the  tail  for  a  shilling.  Ridiculous  aa 
this  may  now  seem,  it  is  precisely  what  we  ourselves  are 
doing — selling  flour  by  the  tun,  arid  then  buying  it  back 
again,  in  the  form  of  cloth  and  iron,  by  the  pound — selling 
cotton  by  the  bale,  and  then  buying  it  back  by  the  penny- 
weight— and  exhausting  the  soil  in  the  effort,  in  this  manner, 
to -obtain  the  little  cloth  and  iron  we  are  able  to  consume. 
Even  then,  however,  a  change  of  the  English  system  was 
near  at  hand.  Efficient  protection,  developing  the  cloth  and 
iron  manufactures,  soon  gave  the  English  farmer  a  market 
at  home,  and  thus  created  domestic  commerce,  the  only  solid 
foundation  for  a  great  external  one.  Raw  materials  rose  in 
price,  while  machines  and  cloths  were  cheapened  ;  and  thus 
was  furnished  the  most  conclusive  evidence,  that  the  nation 
which  would  advance  in  wealth  and  power,  must  adopt  a 
policy  looking  to  the  emancipation  of  the  farmer  from  the  tax 
of  transportation,  and  to  the  approximation  of  the  prices  of 
his  rude  products  and  those  of  the  finished  commodities  re- 
quired for  his  use." — Carey. 

Useful  lessons  may  be  drawn  from  the  policies  of  other  na- 
tions. England  prohibited  the  articles  competing  with  those  of 
her  own  factories,  the  silk  and  cotton  goods  of  the  East.  She 
preferred  to  use  the  interior  and  dearer  goods  produced  by 
her  own  laborers,  and  to  sell  to  the  continental  countries 
these  cheap  and  more  desirable  commodities  of  the  East  ; 
thus  giving  them  the  benefit  of  that  cheapness  denied  to  her 
own  consumers.  The  English  ministers  thought  it  important 
to  establish,  though  at  some  sacrifice,  a  durable  manufactur- 
ing power.  England  has  been  eminently  successful.  She 
now  produces  cotton  and  silk  goods  to  the  value  of  £70,000,- 
000  sterling,  and  supplies  largely  the  markets  of  Europe  and 
other  parts  of  the  world.  The  production  of  cloths  in  Eng- 
land has  reached  a  value  of  £26,000,000  ;  of  cottons,  £45,- 
000,000. 

A  few  hundred  years  ago,  she  was  so  destitute  of  iron  that 
it  was  deemed  necessary  to  prohibit  its  exportation  ;  in  the 
present  century  she  produces  iron  and  the  manufactures  of 
iron  and  steel  of  the  value  of  £18,000,000.  Silk  goods  £10,- 
000.00^.  The  whole  product  of  the  manufacturing  industry 
of  the  three  kingdoms  is  estimated  at  £187,000,000 — nearly 
$900,000,000. 

The  industrial  system  of  France  seems  to  have  been  origi- 
nated by  Colbert,  an  eminent  French  statesman  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.  Her  manufacturing  industry,  commerce,  and 


Chap.  XIX.J  EXPEDIENCY  OF  PROTECTION.  439 

navigation,  had  lost  their  importance,  and  the  finances  were 
in  a  deplorable  state.  Colbert  invited  manufacturers  and 
skillful  workmen  from  other  countries,  and  effected  great  im- 
provements in  machinery.  By  a  general  system  of  duties,  he 
secured  to  the  industry  of  the  country  a  home  market  ;  and 
by  the  construction  of  roads  and  canals,  he  promoted  domestic 
commerce. 

Advantageous  as  these  measures  were  to  manufactures, 
they  were  still  more  so  to  agriculture.  The  number  of  con- 
sumers of  its  products  was  increased  from  two  to  three-fold, 
and  the  producers  and  consumers  were  brought  into  easy 
communication.  The  export  of  raw  materials  was  discour- 
aged ;  and  by  the  development  of  manufacturing  industry, 
the  demand  for  agricultural  productions  was  increased. 

After  the  death  of  Colbert,  his  system  was  overthrown. 
France  became  the  purchaser  of  English  manufactures,  and 
her  own  were  nearly  destroyed.  Napoleon,  appreciating  the 
importance  of  manufacturing  industry,  gave  it  material  en- 
couragement ;  and,  during  the  French  revolution,  English 
competition  was  greatly  restrained.  But  with  his  downfall, 
and  with  the  return  of  peace  in  Europe  and  this  country,  the 
English  began  to  denounce  the  protective  system,  and  to  ex- 
tol Adam  Smith's  theory  of  free  trade,  evidently  with  the 
view  of  regaining  possession  of  the  markets  of  Europe  and 
the  United  States  for  her  manufactures.  The  insincerity  of 
these  advocates  of  free  trade  appears  from  the  fact,  that  any 
proposition  for  opening  her  ports  to  foreign  grain  or  manu- 
factures, was  firmly  resisted.  France,  however,  was  induced 
to  try  the  policy  of  free  trade  with  England  :  but  so  disas- 
trous did  it  prove  to  her  industry,  that  she  was  soon  obliged 
to  adopt  the  protective  system,  under  which,  we  are  informed, 
her  manufacturing  industry  was  doubled  between  1815  and 
1827. 

The  exports  of  France  which,  from  1828  to  1835,  averaged 
only  500,000,000  francs,  reached  1,893,000,000  fr.  in  185G. 

Spain,  at  an  early  period,  was  distinguished  for  her  woolen 
and  certain  other  manufactures  ;  and  prior  to  the  time  of 
Colbert,  supplied  France  with  their  line  cloths  ;  and  her 
commerce  flourished.  But  history  tells  us  that,  by  her  re- 
ligious persecutions,  two  millions  of  the  most  industrous  and 
of  her  inhabitants,  Jews,  Moors,  and  others,  with  their  capi- 
tals, were  expelled  from  the  country,  to  the  destruction  of 
her  manufacturing  industry.  She  was  at  length  compelled  to 
buy  her  manufactures  abroad  with  gold  and  silver.  Her  com- 


440  THE    PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  XIX. 

merce  perished  with  her  manufactures,  and  the  elements  of 
her  power  and  prosperity  are  lost. 

Germany  also  furnishes  evidence  of  the  benefits  of  the  pro- 
tective system.  Two  of  the  largest  States  of  the  German io 
Confederation,  Austria  and  Prussia,  gave  early  encourage- 
ment to  agriculture  and  homo  manufactures  ;  and  a  power- 
ful impulse  was  given  to  the  progress  of  industry.  The  rest 
of  Germany  remained  for  centuries  under  the  influence  of 
free  trade — admitting  foreign  manufactures  and  other  pro- 
ducts, while  German  manufactures  were  excluded  from  the 
very  countries  whence  these  goods  were  imported. 

Under  the  continental  blockade  of  Napoleon,  an  impulse 
was  given  to  German  manufactures  ;  but  they  could  not  en- 
dure the  competition  of  those  of  England,  to  which  they  were 
again  subjected  at  the  return  of  peace.  England  inundated 
the  German  markets  with  her  goods  at  low  prices,  in  accor- 
dance with  the  policy  which  she  had  practiced  for  centuries, 
and  soon  after  the  declaration  of  Mr.  Brougham,  a  member  of 
Parliament,  in  1815,  that  "  England  could  afford  to  incur  some 
loss  on  the  export  of  English  goods,  for  .the  purpose  of  de- 
stroying foreign  manufactures  in  their  cradle." 

In  1819  an  association  or  associations  were  formed  which 
resulted  in  the  Zoll  Vcrein.*  Under  this  organization,  Ger- 
many has  attained  a  state  of  comparative  independence. 
Less  than  thirty  years  ago,  she  sent  wool  to  England  and  re- 
ceived cloth  in  exchange.  In  1825,  28,000,000  pounds  were 
exported  thither.  Of  course,  wool  must  have  been  cheaper 
and  cloth  dearer  in  Germany  than  in  England.  Such  has  been 
the  change  under  the  present  system,  that,  in  1851,  the  net 
import  of  wool  and  woolen  yarn  into  Germany  was  25,000,- 
000  pounds,  and  the  quantity  of  woolen  cloths  exported  was 
12,000,000  pounds  ;  thus  showing  that  wool  had  become 
dearer  and  cloth  cheaper  than  in  other  countries  ;  and  that 
the  prices  of  the  raw  material  and  the  finished  article  had 
approximated  toward  each  other. 

*Zoll  Verein  is,  in  English,  Cnsloms  Union.  Prior  to  1833,  the  States 
composing  the  Germanic"  Confederation,  levied  duties  upon  all  merchan- 
dise passing  their  respective  frontiers ;  and  the  commerce  between  them 
was  lettered  with  vexations  and  oppressive  restrictions.  To  establish  a 
better  policy,  five  of  the  States,  Prussia,  Bavaria,  Wurtcmburg,  Saxony, 
and  Messe  Cassel,  organized  the  German  Customs  Association,  or  Zoll  Ve- 
re.n.  by  which  hll  were  to  adopt  the  same  tariff  of  duties  on  import,  ex- 
port, and  transit ;  and  the  revenue  thus  derived  is  distributed  among  tho 
members  in  proportion  to  the  population  of  each.  The  other  German 
States  have  since  joined  the  Association. 


Chap.  XIX.J  EXPEDIENCY  OF  PROTECTION.  44  J 

Formerly  Germany  exported  her  rags,  and  imported  hei 
paper.  In  1851,  her  net  import  of  rags  was  37,000,000 
pounds,  and  the  export  of  paper,  3,500,000  pounds.  In  the 
first  period,  rags  were  cheaper  and  paper  was  dearer  than  in 
other  countries  ;  in  the  second  period,  rags  were  dearer  and 
paper  cheaper.  In  1830,  her  coal  mines  yielded  8,200,000 
tonnes  ;  in  1854,  the  amount  had  increased  to  40,000,000.  The 
product  of  her  bar  iron  was  76,000  tuns  ;  in  1850,  200,00f 
tuns,  and  of  pig  iron,  600,000  tuns.  The  present  consump- 
tion of  the  Zoll  Verein,  or  Customs  Union,  is  estimated  at  50 
pounds  per  head  per  annum,  an  amount  exceeded  by  few 
countries  in  the  world. 

Russia  affords  another  example  of  the  benefits  of  the  do- 
mestic policy.  During  the  protracted  wars,  the  continental 
blockade,  and  the  restrictive  measures  of  foreign  nations, 
she  was  obliged  to  work  up  her  own  raw  materials.  After 
the  restoration  of  the  general  peace  of  Europe,  she  returned 
to  her  free  trade  policy.  But  the  products  of  her  agriculture 
and  of  her  forests  having  been  excluded  from  foreign  mar- 
kets, her  imports  exceeded  her  exports  ;  and  finding  tho  bal- 
ance of  trade  against  her  to  be  a  different  thing  from  what 
it  had  been  represented  to  be  by  her  own  statesmen,  as  well 
as  those  of  other  countries,  she  adopted  the  protective  policy. 
Capital,  talent  and  labor  came  in  from  abroad,  and  home 
manufactures  were  established.  The  production  of  wool  rap- 
idly increased.  Commerce  also  increased.  Commercial  re- 
vulsions c'ame  to  an  end  ;  and  Russia  is  now  advancing  in 
wealth  and  power. 

Russia  consumed  of  foreign  merchandise,  during  the  free 
trade  from  1814  to  1824,  an  average  of  $32,000,000  annually. 
Under  her  protective  system,  her  power  to  consume  increas- 
ed, until  it  reached  $75,000,000. 

Although  the  protective  S3rstems  of  these  countries  ha\% 
in  view  the  same  general  object,  and  have  been  attended 
with  similar  results,  there  is  one  peculiar  feature  in  the  pol- 
icy of  Great  Britain,  which  distinguishes  it  from  that  of  the 
other  countries.  Her  restrictive  measures  for  regulating 
Trade  with  her  American  colonies,  have  been  noticed.  [Chap.  I.  j 
Their  object  is  most  explicitly  declared  in  the  following  par- 
agraph from  a  British  work — Gee  on  Trade — published  in 
.750  : 

"  Manufactures  in  our  American  colonies  should  be  dis- 
,  prohibited."  *  *  "  We  ought  always  to  keep  a 
19* 


442  TUB  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  IChap.  XIX. 

watchful  eye  over  our  colonies,  to  restrain  them  from  setting  up 
any  of  the  manufactures  which  art  carried  on  in  Great  Britain; 
and  any  such  attempts  should  be  crushed  in  the  beginning." 
*  *  *"  Our  colonies  are  much  in  the  same  state  as  Ireland 
was  in,  when  they  began  the  woolen  manufacture,  and  as 
/heir  numbers  increase,  will  fall  upon  manufactures  for  clothing 
themselves,  if  due  care  be  not  taken  to  find  employment  for  them  in 
raising  such  productions  as  may  enable  them  to  furnish  them- 
selves with  all  the  necessaries  from  us."  *  *  "  As  they 
will  have  the  providing  rough  materials  to  themselves,  so 
shall  we  have  the  manufacturing  of  them.  If  encouragement 
be  given  for  raising  hemp,  flax,  &c.,  doubtless  they  will  soon 
begin  to  manufacture,  if  not  prevented.  Therefore,  to  stop  the 
progress  of  any  such  manufacture,  it  is  proposed  that  no  weaver 
have  liberty  to  set  up  any  looms,  without  first  registering  at 
an  office  kept  for  that  purpose."  *  *  "  That  all  slitting 
mills,  and  engines  for  drawing  wire  or  weaving  stockings, 
be  put  down.1'  *  *  "  That  all  negroes  be  prohibited  from  weav- 
ing either  linen  or  woolen,  or  spinning  or  combing  of  wool,  or  work- 
ing at  any  manufacture  of  iron,  further  than  making  it  into  pig 
or  bar  iron.  That  they  also  be  prohibited  from  manufacturing 
hats,  stockings,  or  leather  of  any  kind.  This  limitation  will  not 
abridge  the  planters  of  any  liberty  they  now  enjoy — on  the 
contrary,  it  will  turn  their  industry  to  promoting  and  raising 
those  rough  materials."  *  *  "If  we  examine  into  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  inhabitants  of  our  plantations,  and  our  own, 
it  will  appear  that  not  one-fourth  of  their  product  redound*  to 
their  own  profit,  for,  out  of  all  that  comes  here,  they  only  carry  back 
clothing  and  other  accommodations  for  their  families,  all  of  which 
is  of  the  merchandise  and  manufacture  of  this  kingdom." 
*  "  All  these  advantages  we  receive  by  the  plantations, 
besides  the  mortgages  on  the  planters1  estates,  and  the  high  interest 
they  pay  us,  which  is  very  considerable" 

We  here  see  the  object  to  make  the  colonists  subservient 
to  the  interests  of  the  merchants  and  transporters  of  the  pa- 
rent country  ;  to  prevent  competition,  in  the  colonies,  with 
the  manufacturers  of  England,  and  to  compel  the  colonists  to 
sell  to  them  their  raw  materials,  and  to  receive  in  exchange 
the  finished  commodities.  And  so  far  as  she  has  found  it 
practicable,  she  has  practiced  the  same  system  in  her  trade 
with  other  countries.  Iler  governing  principle  has  been  to 
keep  down  competition  with  her  in  the  purchase  of  raw  ma- 
terials and  in  the  manufacture  of  them,  at  whatever  sacrifice. 
One  of  the  means  by  which  she  has  so  long  kept  possession 


Chap.  XIX.]  BRITISH  POLICY  443 

of  foreign  markets,  is  disclosed  by  a  public  document  pub- 
lished, a  few  years  ago,  by  order  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
which  contains  the  following  : 

"  The  laboring  classes  generally,  in  the  manufacturing  dis- 
tricts of  this  country,  and  especially  in  the  iron  and  coal  dis- 
tricts, are  very  little  aware  of  the  extent  to  which  they  are 
often  indebted  for  their  being  employed  at  all,  to  the  immense 
losses  which  their  employers  voluntarily  incur  in  bad  times,  in 
order  to  destroy  foreign  competition,  and  to  gain  and  keep  possession 
of  foreign  markets.  Authentic  instances  are  well  known  of 
employers  having  in  such  times  carried  on  their  works  at  a 
loss  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  three  or  four  hundred 
thousand  pounds  in  course  of  three  or  four  years.  If  the  ef- 
forts of  those  who  encourage  the  combinations  to  restrict  the 
amount  of  labor  and  to  produce  strikes,  were  to  be  successful 
for  any  length  of  time,  the  great  accumulations  of  capital 
could  no  longer  be  made  which  enable,  a  few  of  our  most  wealthy 
capitalists  to  overwhelm  all  foreign  competition  in  limes  of  great  de- 
pression, and  thus  to  clear  the  way  for  the  whole  trade  to  step 
in  when  prices  revive,  and  to  carry  on  a  great  business  be- 
fore foreign  capital  can  again  accumulate  to  such  an  extent 
as  to  be  able  to  establish  a  competition  in  prices  with  any 
chance  of  success.  The  large  capitals  of  this  country  are  t/ie  groat 
instruments  of  warfare  against  the  competing  capital  of  foreign  coun- 
tries, and  are  the  most  essential  instruments  now  remaining  by 
which  our  manufacturing  supremacy  can  be  maintained  ;  the 
other  elements — cheap  labor,  abundance  of  raw  materials, 
means  of  communication,  and  skilled  labor — being  rapidly  in 
process  of  being  equalized." 

No  wonder  that  the  designs  of  Great  Britain,  so  early  and 
so  explicitly  avowed,  to  control  the  industry  of  other  nations, 
and  the  adoption  of  a  commercial  policy  in  accordance  with 
this  avowal,  should  provoke  retaliation.  A  far  greater  cause 
of  wonder  is,  that  the  nations  did  not  sooner  attempt  to  extri- 
cate themselves  from  the  commercial  thralldorn  into  which 
they  had  been  brought  by  her  policy.  Nor  is  it  less  strange, 
that  there  are  in  this  country  those  whose  notions  of  free  trade 
lead  them  to  oppose  every  attempt,  on  the  part  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, to  protect  our  citizens  against  the  mischievous 
effects  of  this  foreign  restrictive  prohibitory  system — a  sys- 
tem designed  to  prohibit  the  manufacture  of  our  own  clothing 
and  other  fabrics,  and  to  restrict  our  industry  to  the  cultiva- 
tion of  the  soil,  the  products  of  which  find  no  sale  in  her 
markets,  or  a  very  limited  one,  at  prices  not  remunerative  to 
the  producers. 


444  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  [Chap.  SIX 

The  protective  system  of  Great  Britain,  though  often  re- 
ferred to  for  the  purpose  of  illustrating  the  utility  of  protec- 
tion to  domestic  industry,  is  not  in  every  respect  a  judicious 
one.  Its  leading  principle  and  aim  is  the  monopoly  of  the 
foreign  trade.  To  secure  this,  she  is  obliged  to  keep  down 
the  wages  of  her  laborers,  and  the  prices  of  the  raw  material 
of  her  manufactures.  But  she  begins  to  find  herself  unable 
to  perpetuate  the  commercial  supremacy  she  has  so  long  en- 
jo3red.  France,  Germany,  Eussia,  as  we  have  shown,  and  we 
might  have  added  Belgium,  Denmark,  and  other  nations  of 
Europe,  having  become  manufacturers  for  themselves,  and 
competitors  in  the  purchase  of  raw  materials,  her  foreign 
commerce  must  decline.  As  other  nations  have  advanced  in 
manufactures,  she  has  been  compelled  to  modify  her  policy. 
Her  navigation  acts,  which  were  designed  to  prevent  com- 
petition in  the  purchase  and  transport  of  the  rude  products 
of  the  earth,  have  yielded  to  the  resistance  of  the  United 
States,  Prussia,  and  other  countries  ;  and  competition  in  the 
purchase  of  wool  and  cotton,  has  compelled  her  to  repeal  her 
duties  on  these  articles. 

The  policy  of  France,  as  has  been  observed,  has  respect,  pri- 
marily, to  domestic  commerce,  which  can  not  be  so  easily  affec- 
ted by  changes  in  the  condition  or  commercial  regulations  of 
other  nations.  While  Great  Britain  is  making  every  effort 
to  maintain  or  to  extend  her  foreign  trade,  France  is  endeav- 
oring to  increase  the  production  of  the  raw  materials,  silk, 
wool,  and  food  to  feed  her  own  population.  Her  lands,  instead 
of  diminishing  in  fertility,  as  is  the  case  in  countries  where  the 
people  arc  principally  engaged  in  cultivating  the  soil,  are 
constantly  increasing  in  productiveness.  To  enable  her,  as 
far  as  possible,  to  supply  her  own  population  with  food,  the 
powers  of  the  rnind  have  been  employed  in  devising  improve- 
ments in  agriculture  ;  and  the  result  is,  that  the  quantity  of 
food  produced  lias  increased  much  more  rapidly  than  her  pop- 
ulation, while  her  manufacturing  interest  has  been  advanc- 
ing with  still  greater  rapidity. 

One  of  the  beneficent  results  of  the  protection  of  domestic 
industry,  and  an  active  domestic  commerce,  is  an  adequate 
supply  of  the  precious  metals.  These  generally  move  from 
those  countries  where  the  people  are  chiefly  engaged  in  ex- 
hausting the  soil,  and  the  prices  of  land  and  its  raw  products 
are  low,  to  those  countries  where  there  is  the  greatest  diver- 
sity of  employments,  and  the  greatest  demand  for  labor,  and 
where,  consequentlv,  land  and  its  products  and  the  wages  of 

18* 


Chap.  XIX.]  EXPEDIENCY  OF  PROTECTION  445 

labor  are  high.  Where  articles  essential  to  the  support  and 
comforts  of  life  are  produced  in  the  greatest  variety  ;  in  oth- 
er words,  where  the  greatest  number  of  the  wants  of  man- 
kind can  be  supplied,  thither  does  the  current  of  money  nat- 
urally tend.  We  find  this  power  to  attract  the  precious  me- 
tals in  those  foreign  countries  whose  policy  we  have  just 
described  ;  and  we  have  seen  it  also  in  our  own  country  in 
every  period  of  protection.  On  the  other  hand,  this  power  is 
wanting  in  Ireland,  in  Portugal,  in  Turkey,  in  the  Indies,  in 
Brazil,  and  other  South  American  States,  and  has  been  in 
the  United  States  in  times  when,  for  the  want  of  protection 
to  our  industry,  the  foreign  trade  has  obtained  the  mastery 
over  domestic  commerce,  and  land  and  labor  have  declined 
in  value  ;  and  when  our  people  have  consumed  foreign  mer- 
chandise to  the  extent  of  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  be- 
yond the  value  of  their  exports  of  the  rude  products  of  the 
soil. 

We  see,  too,  that  those  countries,  in  which  a  judicious  sys- 
tem exists,  avoid  those  unfavorable  balances  of  trade  which 
BO  seriously  affect  the  interests  of  nations.  It  may  be  proper 
here  to  notice  the  opinion  of  those  who  maintain  that  the 
"  balance  of  trade,"  so  called,  or  the  excess  of  imports  over 
exports,  argues  no  unfavorable  state  of  trade,  and  is  nothing 
which  it  is  desirable  to  prevent  ;  on  the  contrary,  that  a  na- 
tion's importing  more  than  it  exports,  is  rather  evidence  of  a 
profitable  commerce.  Such  was  once  the  opinion  of  Mr. 
Webster,  who,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Clay  on  the  tariff  of  1824,  said, 
that  "  the  excess  of  imports  over  exports  usually  shows  the 
gains,  not  the  losses  of  trade  ;  or,  in  a  country  that  not  only 
buys  and  sells  goods,  but  employs  ships  in  carrying  goods 
also,  it  shows  the  profits  of  commerce  and  the  earnings  of 
navigation." 

With  respect  to  the  exportation  of  specie,  he  said  :  "  Gen- 
tlemen impute  the  loss  of  market  at  home  to  a  want  of 
money,,  and  this  want  of  money  to  the  exportation  of  the  pre- 
ciousTnetals.  When  the  market  is' overstocked  with  them, 
as  it  often  is,  their  exportation  becomes  as  proper  and  as  use- 
ful as  that  of  other  commodities  under  similar  circumstances. 
The  honorable  member  from  Pennsylvania  has  represented 
the  country  as  full  of  everything  but  money.  This  I  take  to 
be  a  mistake.  The  agricultural  products  so  abundant  in 
Pennsylvania,  will  not,  he  says,  sell  for  money  ;  but  they 
will  sell  for  money  as  quick  as  for  any  other  article  which 
happens  to  be  in  demand.  They  will  sell  for  money,  for  ex- 


446  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  LcliaP  XIX 

ample,  as  easily  as  for  coffee  or  for  tea,  at  the  prices  which 
properly  belong"  to  those  articles.  The  mistake  lies  in  im- 
puting that  to  the  want  of  money,  which  arises  from  want  of 
demand.  Men  do  not  buy  wheat  because  they  have  money, 
but  because  they  want  wheat.'1 

It,  is  no  doubt  true,  that  a  merchant  who  should  exchange 
his  outward  cargo  for  one  which  should  exceed  in  value  the 
former  with  the  cost  of  the  voyage,  would  be  profited  by  that 
particular  operation.  But  suppose  that,  from  a  want  of  a 
Bufficient  quantity  of  goods  to  export,  or  from  the  unwilling- 
ness of  the  foreign  trader  to  receive  them,  the  merchant 
should  be  compelled  to  pay,  or  promise  to  pay,  cash  for  the 
whole  or  a  part  of  his  purchases  ;  and  that,  from  the  want 
of  prompt  payment  on  the  part  of  his  country  customers,  he 
should  be  obliged  to  increase  his  indebtedness  at  every  pur- 
chase ;  how  long  would  he  be  able  to  continue  his  business  ? 
But  it  may  be  said  that  the  difficulty  might  be  avoided  by 
the  general  adoption  of  the  cash  system  :  no  debts  would 
then  be  contracted.  This,  however,  would  only  be  the 
changing  of  one  difficulty  for  another.  The  surplus  pro- 
ducts of  our  soil  having  no  cash  maiket  either  at  home  or 
abroad,  the  means  of  purchasing  would  soon  be  exhausted  ; 
and  the  credit  system  must  again  be  adopted,  or  the  wants 
of  the  people  must  remain  unsupplied  ;  and  indebtedness  at 
home  and  abroad  would  increase,  until  the  country  should 
have  become  ripe  for  another  revulsion  ! 

But  admit  that  money,  as  Mr.  Webster  says,  may  be  su- 
perabundant. Then  let  the  excess  go  abroad,  or  witherso- 
ever it  may  be  sent  to  advantage.  But  is  there  no  danger 
of  the  occurrence  of  the  greater  evil — an  extreme  scarcity  ? 
If  our  annual  imports  should  amount  to  50  millions  of  dollars 
more  than  our  exports,  we  should  soon  reach  a  condition  in 
which  it  would  be  impossible  to  continue  such  importation. 
The  time  of  payment  will  come.  The  importer  presses  his 
customers  to  enable  him  to  pay  his  foreign  creditors  ;  and 
specie  flows  abroad  until  not  enough  remains  to  conduct  ex- 
changes at  home.  Is  it  probable  that  "  wheat  will  now  s«U 
fur  money  as  easily  as  for  tea  and  coffee  at  the  prices  which 
properly  belong  to  them  ?"  There  being  no  demand  for  wheat 
either  at  home  or  abroad,  it  will  bear  a  merely  nominal  price, 
whereas  the  prices  "  which  properly  belong"  to  tea  and  coffee 
will  be  little  less  than  the  prices  which  they  were  sold  for 
when  the  price  of  wheat  was  50  to  100  per  cent,  higher  than 
at  present  There  being  no  foreign  demand  for  our  large 


Chap.  XIX.J  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  447 

surplus  of  wheat,  the  price  of  that  article  must  suffer  a  very 
material  depression,  whereas  the  prices  of  tea,  and  coffee  will 
be  but  slightly  affected  by  our  diminished  ability  to  buy 
them,  there  being"  an  undiininished  demand  for  them  in  all 
other  countries.  But  if  we  do  not  mistake  Mr.  Webster,  and 
if  his  theory  is  correct,  the  prices  of  wheat  and  tea  and  coffee 
must  continue  to  bear  to  each  other  the  same  proportion. 

One  effect  of  a  prosperous  domestic  commerce,  in  which 
there  is  a  rapid  circulation,  and  in  which  dependence  on  the 
trader  is  diminished,  is  the  increase  of  the  value  of  labor  and 
land,  and  the  prices  of  the  products  of  agriculture.  Nor  is  it 
a  valid  objection  to  a  protective  system  which  produces  this 
effect,  that  the  price  of  food  is  enhanced  to  the  consumer. 
The  increase  of  price  is  more  than  compensated  by  the  in- 
creased value  of  labor.  The  history  of  our  own  country,  as 
well  as  that  of  others,  furnishes  examples  showing  that  in 
times  when  the  prices  of  food  have  been  lowest,  the  people 
have  suffered  most  from  the  want  of  it.  When  the  prices  of 
the  products  of  the  farmer  rise,  there  is  a  corresponding  rise 
not  only  in  farm  wages,  but  in  the  price  of  labor  in  all  other 
pursuits.  On  this  subject  we  quote  again  from  Mr.  Carey,  to 
whom  we  are  indebted  for  several  important  facts  contained  in 
this  Chapter.  After  referring  to  instances  furnished  by  Eng- 
land and  France  at  certain  periods  within  the  latter  half  of 
the  last  century,  in  proof  of  this  theory,  he  says  : 

"  As  it  was  in  England,  and  as  it  is  now  in  France,  so  would 
it  be  among  ourselves.  The  work  of  making  a  market  for 
the  food  that  is  now  exported,  would  make  a  demand  for 
muscular  and  mental  force — enabling  each  and  every  man  to 
sell  his  services,  and  to  purchase  those  of  the  people  around 
him.  Labor  being  in  demand,  its  price  would  rise  ;  and  the 
more  rapid  the  rise,  the  more  it  would  be  economized  ;  the 
greater  would  be  the  power  of  accumulation  ;  the  more 
abundant  would  become  the  machinery  required  for  enabling 
him  to  call  the  forces  of  nature  to  his  aid  ;  the  larger  would 
be  the  proportion  of  the  mental  and  physical  force  of  the 
community  given  to  developing  the  treasures  of  the  earth  ; 
and  the  larger  would  be  the  reward  of  labor  in  food  and 
clothing.  Commerce  would  then  grow  rapidly,  but  the  power 
of  the  foreign  trader  would  then  as  much  decline— precisely 
as  we  see  to  have  been  the  case  in  both  France  and  England, 
at  the  periods  above  referred  to." 

In  conclusion,  we  commend  the  subject  of  the  protection  of 
domestic  industry  to  candid  and  patient  investigation.  We 


448  CONCLUSION. 

firmly  believe  that  the  financial  revulsion  of  1857  was  the 
natural  consequence  of  the  present  non-protecting  policy  ; 
and  that  a  complete  recovery  from  its  effects  is  to  be  expect- 
ed only  from  a  return  to  the  system  abandoned  in  1846.  To 
that  belief,  this  compilation  owes  its  appearance.  We  have 
endeavored  to  present  faithfully  and  truly  the  nature  and 
practical  working  of  both  systems — protective  and  free  trade 
— in  this  country  and  in  other  countries  ;  and  we  trust  that 
the  opinions  of  our  most  eminent  statesmen,  here  collected 
from  the  debates  in  our  national  Legislature,  from  Executive 
messages,  and  other  public  documents,  as  well  as  from  their 
unofficial  writings  and  speeches,  will  be  found  of  some  service 
in  guiding  the  sincere  inquirer  to  right  conclusions  on  this 
much  controverted  question. 

The  essential  principles  of  this  branch  of  political  economy 
are  few  and  plain.  We  see  them  constantly  illustrated  by 
the  conduct  of  individuals  in  the  industrial  concerns  of  life  ; 
and  they  can  be  comprehended  by  those  who  are  able  to  ap- 
preciate the  advantages  of  residing  in  the  vicinity  of  a  town 
where  are  carried  on  the  various  branches  of  productive  in- 
dustr\r.  The  farmer  will  readily  assent  to  the  doctrine  of 
Washington,  that  a  home  market  is  preferable  to  a  foreign 
one,  because  "  more  certain,  and  less  liable  to  be  interrupted." 
He  will  believe,  with  Hamilton,  that  a  diversity  of  emplo}'- 
ments,  or  the  multiplying  of  the  objects  of  labor,  increases 
the  productive  power  of  a  nation  ;  with  Jefferson,  that  the 
manufacturer  should  be  planted  by  the  side  of  the  farmer  ; 
with  Jackson,  that  when  there  is  a  large,  unsaleable  surplus 
of  agricultural  products,  a  greater  proportion  of  the  popula- 
tion should  be  employed  in  manufacturing  and  mechanical 
labor  ;  and  with  Buchanan,  that  these  "  independent  States, 
enjoying  a  thousand  advantages,  engaged  in  a  free  trade 
with  each  other,  is  the  FREE  TRADE  we  want."  He  will  see,  in 
all  this,  the  elements  of  a  profitable  commerce,  in  which  ex- 
changes are  easily  and  quickly  made,  and  the  ruinous  ex- 
penses of  transportation  to  and  from  a  transatlantic  market 
are  saved.  May  the  time  be  hastened  when  such  a  commerce 
shall  again  dispense  its  blessings  to  the  American  people  ! 


BRITISH  CORN  LAWS. 


449 


APPENDIX, 


BRITISH  CORN  LAWS. 

THE  "  sliding  scale"  of  duties  established  by  the  Corn  Laws  of  Great 
Britain  was  alluded  to  on  page  337.  These  laws  were  long  the  subject  of 
interest  in  this  country  from  their  supposed  restrictive  effect  upon  the  im- 
portation of  bread-stuffs  into  Great  Britain  from  foreign  countries.  These 
laws,  which  had  been  of  long  standing,  and  had  been  several  times  modi- 
fied, were  repealed  in  1846.  The  following  Table  shows  the  sliding  tcalo 
of  duties  upon  wheat  and  flour,  as  it  stood  in  1842 : 


juarter 
of  8  bushels. 
Under  51s 

51  to  52s 

52  to  55s 

55  to  56s 

56  to  57s 

57  to  58s 

58  to  59s 

59  to  60s 

60  to  61s 

61  to  62s 

62  to  63s 

63  to  64s 

64  to  65s 

65  to  66s 

66  to  69s 

69  to  70s 

70  to  71s 

71  to  72s 

72  to  73s 

73  or  above 


Pi-ice  per 

bushel. 

$153 
1  56 
165 
I  68 
1  71 
174 
1  77 
180 
183 
186 
189 
1  92 
195 

1  98 
207 
210 
218 

2  16 
2  19 
000 


Duties 


pr.  qr. 
20s 
19s 

183 

17s 
16s 
15s 
14s 
13s 
12s 
11s 
10s 

9s 

8s 

7s 

6s 

5s 

4s 

3s 

2s 

Is 


por  bu. 
60cts. 
57 
54 
51 
43 
45 
42 
39 
36 
33 
30 
27 
24 
21 
13 
15 
12 

9 

6 

3 


Duty  per 

bbl. 'flour. 

S2R9 

2  74 

260 

245 

231 

2  17 

203 

185 

73 

59 

45 

31 

16 

01 

86 

72 

57 

43 

28 

14 


The  average  prices  in  England  of  wheat  per  quarter,  were,  in  1830, 
64s.  3d. ;  in  1831,  G6s.  4d. ;  in  1832,  58s.  8d. ;  in  1833,  52s.  lid. ;  in  1834. 
46s.  2d. :  in  1835,  39s.  4d.;  in  1836,  48s.  6d. ;  in  1837.  55s.  lOd. ;  in  1838, 
64s.  7d.;'  in  1839,  70s.  8d. ;  in  1840,  66s.  4d. ;  in  1841,  64s.  5d. 

The  peculiar  feature  of  the  sliding  scale  is,  that  as  the  price  of  wheat 
[technically  called  corn]  rises,  the  duty  falls ;  and  when  the  price  falls, 
the  duty  rises:  so  that  in  times  of  extreme  scarcity,  when  the  people  are 
near  a  state  of  s||rvation,  the  duty  is  merely  nominal. 

The  average  price  of  wheat  per  quarter  for  the  twelve  years  from  1830 
to  1841  inclusive,  was  about  58s. ;  or  $1  77  per  bushel,  on  which  the  duty 
was  42  cents;  and  on  flour.  $2  03  per  barrel.  The  average  price  of 
freight  from  our  principal  ports  was  about  20  cents  a  bushel  for  wheat. 
The  freight  and  duty,  62  cents,  deducted  from  the  price  in  England.  $1  77, 
leave  $1  15,  the  price  at  which  wheat  must  be  bought  in  New  York  to 
bear  transporting  to  the  English  market  without  profit. 


450 


TABLE  OF  DUTIES 


ST3 

°*3 

i 

C^  CO  CO  CC  CO  C^         CO  « 

48aa88888»88 

if 
il-g 

ei 

i 

£ 

WmVW 

sasaa"*-8*-8*- 

III 

several  Ac 
1832 

Ha  Ha 

tocoococ^cocooo 

T-H  «0  CO  <«*  i-l                i-l  M 

<M  Tf  (M  C^               T-i  t-i  i-l 

111 

1  i 

J  rt 

"s 

sesss—  ss 

y 

iii{ 

ft 

?! 
S 

O                O    O 

Igglg"050,0, 

O 

O  O  O  O  CO  Tti  C-1  ?1  O  O  -^  C» 

llli 

» 
S 

O    CJ   O    O    O    O    O 

O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O  O 
(M'MtMCOr-C'li-ii-ii-l 

O 

OOOOCO'tJtC^'MOOCOO* 
C^t—  ii—  (i—  (               i—i  i—  t  i—  it—  I 

fl   1  8  -S  s 

u          § 

. 

o  1111 

?  a.  . 



g  llal 

i  iflj 

Pi 

fames  of  Articles 

•c   t)  ^   p< 

:f 

e       |  a. 

f-t 

If 

1=>^I'; 

?^S 

IJIJ-"-llllllll 

TABLE  OF  DUTIES. 


451 


%%%    gg 


IO  CO  CM  CO  O  CO  CO  rH  r-l  O  r-i  O  1C  CO  lO  ?1  **  O  O  "*  xO  O  O  CO  ^  C  4  1-1  CO  CO    CO 


o 

IQ  CO  <M  CO  »O  CO  CO  r-!  rH  O  rH  U5  O  CO  O  O  Tft  lO  O  **  ^O  O  O  CC  Ol  CM  A  CO  CO    CC 


»OCOC<JCOvOCOCOr-l 


O  CO  CM  C-l  ri 


O    O    O    O 

A  A  a  a  ^a  ^ 

CO  O  O  lO  O  I-  t^ 


O    O          O    O 
r-TcO  rH  O  O  rH  O  O  CO  -^  Tfl  Tjl  COQOOOCJOC1OO 


O    O    O    O    j-    75 

p^  a  n.  a,  a.  5 

OOOOOOC1OO 
Cl  ?1  C<1  ^1  CS  'O  I-H  C^J  O 
CN  r-( 


452 


APPENDIX. 


22 

S     oo o o o o o o ooo o o o o 

|COCOCO<NC^COCS:MC.3CQCOCOCOi-lr-i 


o  o  o 

=-1=MC4! 


C 
C3  O4  ri  < 


ooooo  o-o 

OOOOCOC^CO 


~$    I 

2  'O<MOOOOtOOOOt-~OOOOOOO        OSOOOO 
aO—iOOM         CM  r=*  r^  cl  rH  r-i  CO  C1  dl  O  O  O         iO  *^  O  O  O  O 


O  O 

c.          &, 


O          O 


33       CH 

tb     M 


2 


0-3 
,-»  j! 


•jlll  $!ij 

sii'Myilt^?! 

•  "  *~    r*t^  "!^  ^    iJ    iJ*  —    ~s*    &  .^.  O    C  *^    C    *~ 

IliJ^ls-lll  l|sl: 

iAW^aQ5^OP*eusupL,«aftoO^^     fer 


4i 


TABLE  OF  DUTIES. 


453 


^5      •  rH    c3          o    ^  < 
c3    r;    o  s-  r--< 


§  £ 

<-3           O  O  O  O 

CO         CC  CO  CO  CO 

« 

00  §" 

S  o 

O  ^j       ~ 

t-  Si  *•* 

CJ    ^ 

a 

CM 

5 

£      °° 

^s  - 

eL° 

5 

"  £'! 

O  T^>  ^^^ 

0    °0 

co  co 

O    ,1  O  O  O  O 
CO  «O  TJ<  TJI  CO  O 

o 

o    'g  £ 

rH          O    O 

«-2  § 

W  *J 


SS> 


^^ 


0)    .      ^>    P-C 


c  o 

p-  &• 


lO  Cl   O  ^O 

F-*  ul   CO  r-i 


ul  .-C.sllSS^g^g.^2 

°-co         s  -2  5  rt  -  r  « "2  s  £  „  £  o 

O    o  g    O  .=  J~  O    O    "    tc  ?    5    S    g  M 

'-:••§  ^cg  g^?2  Sbii^ 


i-O         xO  O  O  O         O 
C^l         <M  C^  C^  CO         Cl 


w  ^ 

p. 


, 

e 

5 

j_ 

* 

! 

1 

<L 

'C 

I 

'i 

c 

i 

! 

» 

" 

£ 

c 

•- 

C 

S 

ootees, 

1  n  r-PTt 

j 

R 

)      y 

CC 

1= 
C 
c- 

)         -2 

C 

'y 

^ 

j; 

!5 

)    - 

j  j: 
.  ^ 

•* 

3 

c 

1 

iw  • 

^ 

5 

1 

? 

I 

1 

^ 

c 

•^5 

*  a  °.s  j 


CQ    3    O    -~ 


w  o  ^-"-r     _r     ^S 

•g    o    O    rt          ^          ^         "" 

5^ 


§§ 
^^ 


o  ^ 


S£35 


r-o^-co2^~u—    -oo 

C  »3  •=    -     =,  »     2     ^CS^r-. 


*d 

R?l!l!^,i^! 

_ -u      -__?°occ-r-e^o 


S3ig*|g-8»a2* 

§s3^g?e--ogs-8 

?  H  w  S      ®      £  ^  c-oj? 
>.      f*  o    .i2±*u-^     "5^3 


"IS^S^'gSarf 

^r  5  ar«2  ^  §  w  -s  te 

g-2c»o^225« 


S  rt  S^i^  c-5  «  w 

^CJU          5c3>C-<tt-*' 

casL^^wji^ 

P  .S  =2  »  5  P   '"  '    ~ 


||S 


CCCOO    =      "    3 


. 

rt    8  .S    «    =  00  ^ 


"3,      'tf 


454 


APPENDIX. 


IMPORTS,    EXPORTS,    AND   REVENUE. 

I 

IMPORTS  of  foreign  merchandise  into  the  United  States  :  the  whole  ex- 
ports of  foreign  merchandise  and  domestic  products ;  and  the  domestic 
products  singly  :  also  the  net  revenue  from  duties  on  imports.  Deducting 
tne  domestic"  exports  from  the  whole  exports,  the  remainder  will  show  the 
amount  of  foreign  goods  exported.  Specie  and  bullion  are  included  in  the 
imports  and  exports. 


Year. 

Imports. 

1790 

$23.000.000 

1791 

29,200,000 

1792 

31,500,000 

1793 

31,100,000 

1794 

31,600,000 

1795 

69,756,263 

1796 

81,  436',  164 

1797 

75.379,406 

1793 

68.551,700 

1799 

79;069,149 

1800 

91,252,768 

1801 

111,363.511 

1802 

76,333^333 

1803 

64,666.666 

1804 

86,000,000 

1805 

120.600,000 

1806 

129;4  10,000 

1807 

138.500,000 

1808 

56,990,000 

1809 

59,400.000 

1810 

85,400,000 

1811 

53.400.000 

1812 

77,030.000 

1813 

22,005,000 

1814 

12,965.000 

1915 

113,041.274 

1816 

147,103,000 

1817 

99.250,000 

1818 

121,750,000 

1819 

87,125,000 

1820 

74.450,000 

1821 

62,585,724 

1822 

83.241,541 

1923 

77.579,267 

1824 

80,549.007 

1825 

96.340,075 

1826 

84,974,477 

1827 

79,434,063 

]  V'3 

88,509,624 

1829 

74,492,527 

1830 

70,876,9-20 

1331 

103,191,124 

Exports. 
$20,205.156 
19,012.041 
20,753,098 
26,109,572 
33,026,233 
47.989,472 
67;064,079 
56.850.206 
61,527,097 
78,665,522 
70,971,780 
94,115,925 
72,48  J,  160 
55,bOO,033 
77,699,074 
95,566,021 
101.536,963 
108,843.150 
22,430,960 
52,203,233 
66,757,970 
61,316,833 
38,527.236 
25,008,132 
6,782,272 
45,974,403 
64,781,896 
68,313,500 
73,354,437 
70,142,521 
69,691,669 
64,974,328 
72,160,231 
74.699,030 
75,986,657 
99,535,383 
77,595,322 
82,324,827 
72,264,686 
72,358,671 
73,840,508 
81,310,583 


Dora.  Exports. 
$19.660.000  ) 
18,500,000  $ 
19,000,000 
24,000,000 
26,500.000 
39,500.000 
40,764,097 
29,850,206 
28.527,097 
33'.  142,522 
31,840,903 
47.473,204 
36,708,189 
42,205,961 
41,467,477 
42,387,002 
41,253.727 
48,699,592 

9,433.546 
31,405,702 
42.366,675 
45,294,043 
30.033,109 
27.855,997 

6,927,441 
52.557,753 
81,920,453 
82,6V  1,569 
93.281,133 
50,976,838 
51,683,640 
43,671.894 
49,874,079 
47,155,408 
50,649,500 
66,944,745 
53,055,710 
58,921,691 
50,669,669 
55,700,193 
59,462,029 
61,277,027 


Revenue. 


IMPORTS,   EXPORTS,  AND  REVENUE. 


455 


Tear. 

Imports. 

1832 

101,029,266 

1833 

108,118,311 

1634 

126.521,332 

1835 

149,895,742 

1836 

189,980.035 

1837 

140,989.217 

1838 

113,717,404 

1839 

162.092,132 

1840 

107.141,519 

1841 

127,946,477 

1842. 

100.162.087 

1843* 

64,763,799 

1844 

108,435,035 

1845 

117,254,564 

1846 

121,691,797 

1847 

146.545,638 

1848 

154!977.928 

1849 

147,857,439 

1850 

178,138,318 

1851 

216,224.932 

1852 

212,945,442 

1853 

267,978,647 

1854 

304,562,381 

1855 

261,46^.520 

1856 

314,639,942 

1857 

360,890,141 

1858 

282613,150 

1859 

338i768,130 

i860 

362,163,941 

186. 

334,350,453 

1862 

205,819,823 

1863 

262,287,587 

Exports. 

Dom.  exports. 

Revenue. 

87,176,943 

63,137,470 

28,465,237 

90,140,433 

70.317,693 

29.032.509 

104,346,973 

81,024,162 

16.214,957 

121,693.677 

101,189.062 

19,391,311 

128,663.040 

106.916,680 

23,309,941 

117,419,376 

95,564,414 

11,169,290 

1  8,486,616 

96,033.821 

16,158,800 

121.028,416 

103,533,891 

23,137,925 

132,085.946 

113.895,634 

13,499,502 

121,851.803 

106,382.722 

14,487,217 

104,691,534 

92.960,996 

18,187,909 

84,346,480 

77,793783 

5,916,355 

111,200,046 

99,715.179 

26,183,571 

114,646,606 

99,299,776 

27.528,113 

113,488,516 

102,141,893 

26,712.668 

158.648,622 

150.627,464 

23,747,865 

154,436.436 

132.904,121 

31.757,071 

145,755,820 

132,666,955 

28.346,739 

151.893.720 

136,946.912 

39.663,686 

218:383iOH 

196.669,718 

49,017,568 

209,641,625 

192.368.934 

47.339,327 

230,452,250 

213,417,697 

58,931,865 

278,241,064 

253,390,870 

64,224.190 

275,156.846 

246.708,553 

53,025,794 

326,964.908 

310.536.330 

64,022.860 

362.960,682 

338.985.065 

63.675,903 

324,644,421 

293.758,279 

41,789,620 

356.789.462 

335.894.385 

49,565,824 

400,122,296 

373,189,274 

53.187,512 

248,505.454 

228,699,486 

39.582,126 

229,790.280 

212.920.639 

49:056,398 

331,809)'459 

305,S50,'l49 

69.059,642 

*  Prior  to  1843,  the  fiscal  year  commenced  the  1st  day  of  October,  and 
ended  on  the  30th  of  September  of  the  year  following.  By  the  act  of 
1842.  after  that  year,  the  fiscal  year  was  to  end  on  the  30th  of  June.  This 
change  gave  to  the  year  1843  but  nine  months,  which  will  account,  in  part, 
for  the  large  apparent  diminution  of  imports  and  exports  for  that  year. 
The  statistical  Tables  of  Revenue  differ  from  those  of  Imports  and  Ex- 
ports by  showing  the  Revenue  from  the  commencement  of  the  Government, 
by  the  calendar  year,  until  the  31st  of  December,  1842,  after  which,  by  the 
fiscal  year  ending  June  30th ;  so  that  the  above  table  shows  the  revenue  for 
only  the  six  months,  from  the  1st  of  January  to  the  30th  of  June,  1843. 
Since  that  time,  the  tables  show  both  the  Imports  and  Exports,  and  the 
Revenue,  for  each  fiscal  year,  ending  the  30th  of  June.  Statistical  tables 
in  other  books  give  as  the  revenue  for  the  six  months  of  1843,  $7,046,846. 
A  statement,  however,  with  the  official  signature  of  the  Register  of  the 
Treasury,  gives  the  amount  expressed  in  the  table  above. 


456 


APPENDIX 


AGRICULTURAL    PRODUCTS    EXPORTED. 


A  Statement  exhibiting  the  value  of  Cotton,  Tobacco,  Rice,   and  Pro- 
visions  exported  annually,  and  the  price  of  cotton  per  pound. 

Bread-stuffs 

Tear. 

Cotton. 

Cents. 

Tobacco. 

Rice. 

&.  Provisions. 

1821 

820,157.484 

162 

$5,648,962 

$1.494,307 

812.341,901 

1822 

24.035,058 

166 

6.222,838 

1,553,482 

13.886,856 

1823 

20.445,520 

11.8 

6,232,672 

1,620.985 

13,767,647 

1824 

21.947.401 

154 

4.855.566 

1,882'.932 

15.059.484 

1825 

36.846^649 

209 

6,115,623 

1.925,245 

11,634,449 

1825 

25,025,214 

12.2 

5,347.208 

1.917,445 

11,303,496 

1827 

29,359,545 

10 

6.577.123 

2.343903 

11.6S5.556 

1623 

22,487,229 

10.7 

5,269.960 

2.620.696 

11,461,144 

182!) 

26,575,311 

10 

4,982:974 

2,514,370 

13,131,853 

1831) 

29,674,683 

99 

5,586,365 

1,936,624 

12.075,430 

1933 

25,289492 

9-1 

4,892.388 

2,016,267 

17.533,227 

183'J 

31,724,682 

98 

5,999.769 

2,J52;631 

12,424.703 

iS3;t 

36,191,105 

11.1 

5,755,968 

2,744.418 

14,209,123 

1S34 

49,448,402 

128 

6^595:305 

2,122,272 

11,524,024 

133c. 

64,961.302 

163 

8^50,577 

2.210,331 

12,009.399 

is#; 

71,284.925 

168 

10,058.640 

2,543,750 

10.614,130 

183V 

63.240.102 

142 

5,795.647 

2,309,279 

9.583,359 

183B 

61,566;S11 

103 

7,392^29 

1,721.819 

9,636.650 

183!l 

61,238.982 

143 

9.832.943 

2,460,193 

14,147/779 

18411 

63,870,307 

8.5 

9;883',957 

1,942076 

19,067,535 

1841 

54,330,341 

10.2 

12,576,703 

2,010,107 

17,196,102 

184  > 

47,593,464 

81 

9,540,755 

1,907,387 

16,902,876 

184} 

49,119,606 

6.2 

4.650,979 

1,625.726 

11.204,123 

1341 

54,063.501 

8.1 

8,397,255 

2.182.463 

17,970.135 

1845 

51,739;643 

5.9 

7,469,819 

2'160,458 

16,743,421 

1345 

42,767,341 

7.8 

8.478,270 

2,564.991 

27,701,921 

1647 

53,415,848 

10.3 

7,242.086 

3,605,896 

63,701,121 

1843 

61,993,294 

7.6 

7,551,122 

2  331.824 

37,472,751 

1849 

66,396,967 

64 

5,804,207 

2569.362 

38.155.507 

1850 

71,984.616 

113 

9,951,023 

2,631.557 

26,051.373 

1851 

112,315.317 

121 

9.219,251 

2.170,927 

21,941651 

1852 

87,965,732 

85 

10,031.283 

2,470,029 

25,857.027 

1853 

109,456,404 

985 

11,319,319 

1.657,658 

32.935,322 

1654 

93,596,220 

9.47 

10,016,0»6 

2.634.127 

65,941,323 

1855 

88,143,844 

874 

14,712.463 

1,717,953 

38,895,348 

1856 

128,382,351 

949 

12,221.843 

2,390.233 

77,167.301 

1857 

131,575,859 

1255 

20,062,772 

2,290.400 

74,667,852 

1658 

131,386.661 

11.7 

17,009,767 

I,870i578 

50,683.285 

1859 

161,434,923 

11.64 

21,074,033 

2,207,143 

38,305,991 

PRICES  OF  FLOTTH 


PRICES    OF    FLOUR. 

Annual  export  price  of  Flour  at  New  York  from  1800  to  1866;  also  tho 
annual  price  in  the  city  of  New  York. 


Export 

N.  York 

Year. 

Price. 

Price. 

1800 

810  00 

69  38 

]801 

13  00 

10  14 

1802 

:  9  oo 

6  19 

1803 

7  00 

6  01 

1804 

7  75 

7  15 

1805 

13  00 

9  59 

1806 

7  50 

7  13 

1807 

8  25 

6  76 

1808 

6  00 

5  15 

1809 

7  60 

6  79 

1810 

8  25 

8  77 

1811 

10  50 

9  05 

1812 

10  75 

9  08 

1813 

13  00 

7  76 

1814 

14  50 

7  76 

1815 

9  25 

8  17 

1816 

9  37 

9  34 

1817 

14  75 

11  72 

1818 

10  25 

9  42 

1819 

8  00 

6  79 

1820 

5  37 

4  81 

1821 

4  25 

4  85 

1822 

7  00 

6  39 

1823 

7  75 

6  93 

1824 

6  62 

5  93 

1825 

5  37 

5  19 

1826 

5  25 

5  00 

1827 

8  00  - 

5  14 

Export 

N.  York 

Year. 

Price. 

Price. 

1828 

5  50 

5  60 

1829 

5  00 

6  54 

1830 

7  25 

5  03 

1831 

6  62 

5  84 

1832 

5  87 

5  87 

1833 

5  50 

5  70 

1834 

5  50 

5  07 

1835 

6  00 

6  00 

1836 

7  50 

7  78 

1837 

10  25 

9  69 

1838 

9  50 

8  02 

1839 

6  75 

7  40 

1840 

5  37 

5  17 

1841 

5  20 

6  39 

1842 

6  00 

6  67 

1843 

4  50 

5  07 

1844 

4  75 

4  61 

1845 

4  51 

6  00 

1846 

5  18 

5  19 

1847 

5  95 

6  80 

1848 

6  22 

5  71 

1849 

5  35 

4  96 

1850 

5  00 

4  86 

1851 

4  77 

4  19 

1852 

4  24 

4  96 

1853 

5  60 

6  51 

1854 

7  88 

8  02 

1855 

10  10 

9  62 

From  a  statement  of  the  number  of  barrels  of  Flour  annually  exported 
from  the  United  States,  down  to  tho  year  1841,  it  appears  that  the 
average  annual  export  from  1791,  (51  years,)  is  899,494  barrels.  The 
annual  average  for  each  10  years  to  1840,  inclusive,  is  as  follows: 

For  the  first  decade,  ending  wiih  1800, 703.286  barrels. 

For  the  second, 1810, 907.895      do 

For  the  third, 1820, 1,012,615      do 

For  the  fourth, 1830 -  839,510      do 

For  the  fifth 1840 950,910      do 

It  thus  appears,  that,  for  the  first  50  years,  there  can  hardly  bo  said 
to  have  been  an  increase  of  the  quantity  of  flour  exported. 


4*8 


APPENDIX. 


REVENUE  FROM  THE  SALES  OF  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS. 


Toar. 

Revenue. 

.Year. 

Revenue. 

Year. 

Revenue. 

179G 

$4,836 

1818 

82,606,564 

1840 

S3.  292,285 

1797 

83.540 

1819 

3,274,422 

1841 

1.365.627 

1793 

11,963 

1820 

1,635.871 

1842 

1,335.797 

1799 

1821 

1.212,966 

1843 

897,81fc 

1600 

443 

1822 

1,603.581 

1844 

2.059,935 

1801 

167,726 

1823 

916,523 

1845 

2,077,022 

1802 

183,623 

1824 

984.418 

1F46 

2,694,452 

1803 

165,675 

1825 

1,216,090 

1847 

2,493.355 

1804 

487,526 

1826 

1.393,785 

1348 

3,323,644 

1805 

540,193 

1827 

1,495.845 

1849 

1.689,959 

1806 

765,245 

1828 

1,018,303 

1850 

1,859,894 

1807 

466,163 

1329 

1,517,175 

1851 

2.352,305 

1608 

647,939 

1830 

2,329,356 

1852 

2,043,239 

1809 

442,252 

1831 

3,210,815 

1853 

1,667,084 

1810 

696,548 

1832 

2,633,381 

1854 

8,470,793 

1811 

1,040.237 

1833 

3,967,682 

1855 

11,497,049 

1812 

710',427 

1834 

4,657,600 

1856 

8,917,644 

1613 

835,655 

1835 

14,757,600 

1857 

3,629,486 

1814 

1,135,971 

1336 

24,877,179 

1853 

3i513,716 

1815 

1,287,959 

1837 

6,776,236 

1859 

1,734,687 

1816 

1,717,985 

1839 

3.031,839 

1817 

1,991,226 

1839 

7,076,447 

IMPORTS  AND 

EXPORTS  OF  COIN 

AND  BULLION. 

Tear. 

Imported. 

Exported, 

Year. 

Imported. 

Exported. 

1821 

$8,064,890       110,477,969 

1842 

84,087.016 

84,813.539 

1822 

3,369,846 

10.810,180 

1843 

22,390,559 

1,520,791 

1823 

5,097,896 

6,372.967 

1844 

5,830,429 

5,454.214 

1824 

8,379.835 

7.014,552 

1845 

4,070,242 

8,606,495 

1825 

6,150,765 

8,787,659 

1846 

3,777,732 

3,905.263 

1826 

6,880,966 

4,704,533 

1847 

24,121,289 

1,907,024 

1827 

8.151,130 

8.014,880 

1848 

6,360,224 

15,841.616 

1P28 

7;489,74l 

8,243,476 

1849 

6,651,240 

5,404,643 

1829 

7,403,612 

4,924,020 

1850 

4,628,792 

7,522,994 

1830 

8,155,964 

2,178  773 

1851 

5,453.592 

29472.752 

1831 

7,305.945 

9,014,931 

1852 

5,505,044 

42,674,135 

1832 

6,907,504 

5656,340 

1853 

4,201,382 

27.486,875 

1833 

7,070,363 

2,611,701 

1854 

'6,958.184 

4M36.456 

1834 

17,911,632 

2,076,758 

1855 

3,659,812 

56.247,343 

1835 

13,131.447 

6.477,775 

1856 

4,207,632 

45,745,485 

1836 

13,400,881 

4,324,336 

1857 

12,461,799 

69,136,922 

1837 

10,516.414 

5.976,249 

1858 

19,274,496 

52,633,147 

1838 

17,747,116 

3,508,046 

1859 

6,369,703 

63,887,411 

1S39 

5595.176 

8,776,743 

1860 

8,550,135 

66,546,239 

1840 

8,862,813 

8:417,014 

1?61 

46,339,611 

29,791,  Ob'  U 

1841 

4,998,633 

10,034  332 

1662 

16,415,052 

36,666,956 

INDEX. 


Adams,  John  Q.,  from  committee  on  manufactures,  in  1832,  reports  a  bill, 
259  ;  remarks  of,  on  the  bill,  262-4;  on  Verplanck's  bill,  276;  on 
the  minimum  principle,  301. ;  report  of,  on  Tyler's  veto,  306,  307  ; 
address  of,  to  his  constituents,  October,  1844,  on  the  tariff  of  1842 
and  protection  generally.  340. 

Ad  valorem  duties,  to  what  objections  liable,176-7,  392. 

Agriculture,  benefited  by  manufactures,  61-2, 82,  143-4, 189-91,  252-3,  270 ; 
interests  of,  connected  with  others.  122-3,  129,  182;  report 
of  committee  on,  131-6. 

Albany  Argus,  on  the  tariff  of  1842.  313. 

Alexander,  Mark,  of  Va.,  on  bill  of  1820, 109-10,  113 ;  on  bill  of  1828,  220. 

Allen,  Wm.,  of  0.,  moves  a  reduction  of  duties,  328. 

Anderson,  John,  of  Maine,  on  tariff  of  1828,  208-9. 

Anderson,  [author,]  on  National  Industry,  411-12. 

Appleton,  Nathan,  of  Mass.,  on  tariff  bill  of  1832,  259 ;  on  Verplanck's 
bill,  276. 

Archer,  W.  S.,  of  Va.,  on  bill  of  1820, 109,  114-15;  on  woolens  bill,  191-2; 
on  tariff  of  1842,  309. 

Arnold,  Tho.  D.,  of  Term.,  on  Verplanck's  bill,  270. 

Asia,  manufactures  in,  150. 

Atherton,  Charles  G.,  of  N.  H.,  on  tariff,  1842,  287-8. 

Auction  sales,  duty  on,  prayed  for,  92 ;  effect  of,  111,  177. 

Bacon,  Ezekiel,  of  Mass.,  his  resolution,  42-3. 

Bagging,  cotton,  duty  on  opposed,  143. 

Balance  of  trade,  79, 113, 125, 153-4, 161-2 ;  illustration  of,  100 ;  Webster's 
views  on,  considered,  445-7. 

Baldwin,  Henry,  of  Pa.,  reports  a  tariff  bill,  in  1820,  93  ;  lias  speech  on  it, 
94-100,'  109,  report  of,  on  manufactures,  1821,  122. 

Banks,  John,  of  Pa.,  on  Verplanck's  bill,  276. 

Barbour,  P.  P.,  of  Va.,  on  bill  of  1820,  109-10. 

Barbour,  James,  of  Va.,  on  tariff  bill  of  1820,  121. 

Barney,  John,  of  Md.,  on  woolens  bill,  185-6,  189. 

Barnwell,  R.  W.,  of  S.  C.,  on  protection,  235. 

Bartlett,  Ichabod,  of  N.  II.,  on  woolens  bill,  196. 

Bates,  Isaac  C.,  of  Mass.,  on  tariff  of  1828  ,  218  ;  on  bill  of  1832,  264 ;  on 
Verplanck's  bill,  276. 

Bates,  Edward,  of  Mo.,  on  tariff  of  1828,  219,  220. 

Bell,  John,  of  Tenn.,  on  bill  of  1832,  264  ;  on  force  bill,  279. 

Benton,  Thomas  II.,  of  Missouri,  on  tariff  of  1828,  221-2. 

Blackledge,  Wm.  S.,  of  N.  C.,  on  tariff  of  1804,  41. 

Blair,  James,  of  S.  C.,  on  protection,  235 ;  on  force  bill,  278. 

Beardsley,  Samuel,  of  N.  Y.,  on  Verplanck's  bill,  276. 

Berrien,  J.  M.,  of  Ga.,  opposes  disturbing  the  bill  of  1842,  328;  speech 
of,  in  Boston,  419-21. 

Bibb,  Geo.  M.,  of  Ky.,  on  force  bill,  277. 

Black,  E.  J.,  of  Ga.,  resolution  of,  for  revenue  duties,  327. 

Boston,  anti- tariff  meeting  in  1820,  416 ;  also  in  1828,  417. 

liouldin,  Tho.  T.,  of  Va.,  on  protection,  235 ;  on  bill  of  1832,  259. 

459 


460 

Bounty  on  flsh.  effects  of,  225. 
Brinkerhoff,  Jacob,  of  0.,  on  the  tariff  of  1846,  370. 
Bullard,  flenry  A.,  of  La.,  on  bill  of  1832,  2G4,  266. 
British  and  American  tariffs  compared,  93. 
Brown,  Bedford,  of  N.  C.,  on  force  bill,  277. 

Buchanan,  James,  on  tariff  of  1824, 143-4, 165-7  :  on  woolens  bill  of  1827, 

180,  181,  195 ;  on  the  bill  of  1828,  217,  219  ;  on  bill  to  enforce 

collection  of  duties,  239 ;  on  tariff  of  1842,  309 ;  as  President, 

recommends  increase  of,  392,  395. 

Burges,  Tristam,  of  R.  I.,  on  woolens  bill,  181 ;  on  bill  of  1828,  218;  on 

protection,  235;  on  bill  of  1832,  264;  on  Verplanck's  bill,  276. 
Burnside,  Thomas,  of  Pa.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  72. 
Burrill,  James,  of  R.  I.,  on  tariff  bill  of  1820,  121. 
Calhoun,  John  C.,  of  S.  C.,  on  Tariff  of  1816,  71,  81-85,  86 ;  on  fore«  bill, 

277;  on  tariff  of  1842,  308. 
Cameron,  Simon,  of  Pa.,  on  Tariff  of  1846,  375-6-7 ;    exposes   election 

frauds  in  1844,  377. 

Cambreleng,  C.  C.,  of  N.  Y.,  on  tariff  of  1824,  146, 179-80;  on  woolens 
bill,  195-6  ;  on  bill  of  1828, 220;  on  protection.  235  ;  on  Ver- 
planck  s  bill,  276. 

Capital,  forcing  of,  into  new  employments,  127,  141. 
Capital,  foreign,  use  of  desirable,  33,  34. 
Capital  in  sheep  husbandry,  249. 
Carpeting,  manufacture  and  price  of,  338. 
Carson,  Samuel  P.,  of  N.  C.,  on  force  bill,  278. 
Casey,  Zadok,  of  111.,  on  tariff  of  1842,  308. 
China  trade,  91. 

Choate,  Rufus,  of  Mass.,  on  bill  of  1832,  264;  on  Verplanck's  bill,  276; 
opposes  disturbing  the  tariff  of  1842,  329-31 ;   on  constitutionality 
of  protection,  406-8. 
Ciaiborne,  Nath'l  H.,  of  Va.,  on  woolens  bill,  187-8 ;  on  bill  of  1828,  209, 

210. 

Clay,  Joseph,  of  Pa.,  on  tariff  of  1804,  40-1. 

Clay,  Henry,  of  Ky.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  66,  72;  on  bill  of  1820,  101-2,  109, 
115-21;  on  tariff  of  1824,  147-58;  resolution  of,  to  reduce  duties, 
240-1 ;  debate  on  the  same  and  the  tariff  system  generally,  and  the 
passage  of  the  resolution,  241-57;  his  compromise  tariff  bill,  281-2; 
bill  debated,  282-3,  and  passed,  283-4. 
Clay,  C.  C.,  of  Ala.,  on  bill  of  1832,  264. 
Clayton,  A.  S.,  of  Ga.,  on  bill  of  1832,  264  ;  on  force  bill,  278. 
Clayton,  J.  M-,  of  Del.,  on  force  bill,  277  ;  on  tariff  of  1842,  309. 
Coal,  production  of,  300. 
Coasting  trade,  its  importance,  &c.,  68.  290 ;  benefited  by  protection  of 

manufactures,  153,  290 ;  duty  'protected,  425. 
Coffee,  duty  on,  reduced,  239. 

Coleman,  Dr.,  letter  of  Gen.  Jackson  to,  on  the  tariff,  412-13. 
Collamer,  Jacob,  of  Vt.,  on  tariff  of  1846,  356-8. 

Commerce  increased  by  manufactures,  61,  174,  253-4,  427,  435;  protec- 
tion of,  by  duties- on  tunnage,  24,  54,  119-20,  424  ;  a  pet  of  the 
government,  98 ;  dependent  on  other  interests,  99,  182 ;  source 
of  foreign  wars,  117  ;  of  Great  Britain,  150. 

Commerce,  domestic,  effects  of,  on  specie,  444  ;  on  the  price  of  land  and 
labor,  447. 


INDEX.  461 

Colbert,  the  political  economist  of  France,  his  system,  438-9. 

Collin,  John  Fv  of  N.  Y.,  on  tariff  bill  of  1846,  362-4. 

Competition,  effect  of,  on  price,  127-8, 152,  251. 

Consumption,  effects  of  duty  on,  205-6,  245-6. 

Cook,  Daniel  B.;  of  111.,  on  woolens  bill,  195. 

Cooper,  on  protection  of  manufactures  L-iid  agriculture,  412. 

Corn  laws,  British,  119;  scale  of  duties  under,  449. 

Cotton,  effect  of  protection  on  the  production  of,  264-7. 

Cotton,  duty  on,  22-3;  bagging,  duty  on,  opposed,  1824,  143;  extent  of 
production  and  manufacture  of.  174,  206-7 :  reduction  of  price  of 
238,  243-4-5,  252. 

Cottons,  protection  of,  by  France  and  England,  58;  effect  of  protection  of, 
on  price  of,  236  7 ;  annual  product  of,  250,  265. 

Cotton  bagging,  effect  on,  of  the  tariff  of  1842,  339. 

Condit,  Lewis,  of  N.  J.,  on  the  tariff  of  1816,  71-2. 

Crawford,  Tho.  H.,  of  Pa.,  on  protection,  235  ;  on  M'Duffie's  bill  to  reduce 
duties,  258-9 ;  on  Vtrplanck's  bill,  276. 

Crawford,  Win.  II.,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  on  specific  duties,  388. 

Credits  on  duties,  111-12,  177,  296,  425. 

Currency,  great  reduction  of,  123-4. 

Cuthbert,  A.,  of  Ga.,  on  the  tariff  of  1816,  85. 

Dallas,  Geo.  M.,  of  Pa.,  on  tariff  of  1832,  244,  257  ;  on  force  bill,  277. 

Daniel,  Henry,  ofKy.,  on  force  bill,  278. 

Davis,  John,  of  Mass.,  on  Avoolens  bill,  188-9;  on  bill  of  1828,  218;  on  pro- 
tection. 235  ;  on  bill  of  1832,  264-6  ;  on  Verplanck's  bill,  276. 

Dearborn,  H.  A.  S.,  of  Mass.,  on  Verplanck's  bill,  276. 

Denny,  Harmar,  of  Pa.,  on  protection,  235;  on  bill  of  1832,  264;  on  Ver- 
planck's bill,  267  ;  report  of,  in  IN.  Y.  industrial  convention,  418. 

Dickerson,  Mahlon,  of  N.  J.,  on  tariff  bill  of  1820,  121 ;  on  tariff  of  1828, 
221-2,  225;  on  tariff  of  1832,  242;  reports  a  bill  to  regulate 
duties  on  imports,  257. 

Distribution  of  land  proceeds,  bill  to  suspend,  304-5;  bill  vetoed,  305. 

Drayton,  Wm.,  of  S.  C.,  on  protection,  235;  on  bill  of  1832,  259;  on  Ver- 
planck's bill,  276. 

Pwight,  Henry  W.,  of  Mass.,  on  tariff  of  1828,  218. 

Duties,  rates  of,  under  the  tariff  of  1789,  21-2 ;  on  tunnage,  24 ;  under  acts 
of  1797,  1800,  39;  under  act  of  1804,  41-2  ;  doubled  in  1812,  54; 
increased  on  tunnage,  54;  abolition  of  credits  on,  prayed  for,  91, 
discussed,  110-12;  effect  of,  on  price,  127-8,  210;  ad  valorem, 
evasion  of,  176-7 ;  evasion  of,  by  importing  unfinished  goods,  176-7  ; 
credits  on,  effect  of,  177 ;  proposed  on  wool  and  woolens,  in  1828, 
203 ;  in  1832,  231-3 ;  effect  of,  on  consumers,  205-6,  210 ;  effect  of, 
on  raw  material,  207 ;  and  on  coarse  wool,  207  ;  bill  for  the  more 
effectual  collection  of,  235  ;  Clay's  resolution  to  reduce  duties,  in- 
troduced, 240 ;  debated,  240-57,  and  passed,  257  ;  specific,  prefer- 
red, 300-1,  388,  392. 

Earthenware,  manufactories  of,  ruined,  141. 

East  India  trade,  69,  91. 

Economists,  political,  doctrine  of,  141. 

Ellsworth,  Wm.  W..  of  Conn.,  on  Verplanck's  bill,  276. 

Embargo,  effect  of,  53. 

England,  [see  Great  Britain], 

Evans,  George,  of  Maine,  on  bill  of  1832,  264;  report  of,  on  senatorial  ac- 
tion, 327 ;  on  the  tariff  of  1846,  372-5. 


462  IXDEX. 

Everett,  Edward,  of  Mass.,  on  protection,  235 ;  on  bill  of  1832,  264. 

Ewing,  Thomas,  of  Ohio,  on  tariff  of  1832,  244 ;  on  force  bill,  277. 

Exports  and  imports,  204 ;  tables  of,  Appendix. 

Exports,  as  affected  by  protection  of  manufactures,  152 ;  of  flour  and  meat, 

Expenditures  of  government.  298-9.  [418. 

Filimore,  Millard,.  of  N.  Y.,  on  bills  of  1842,  292-3-7. 

Fiscal  year  changed,  by  act  of  1842,  334. 

Fisheries,  protected,  120,  225,  425. 

Fishkill  woolen  factory,  statements  concerning,  291. 

Fitzsmions,  Thomas,  of  Pa.,  on  act  of  1789,  330. 

Flour,  market  of.  in  New  England,  173 ;  exports  of,  173, 418. 

Foot,  Sam'l  A.,  of  Conn.,  on  tariff  of  1828,  226. 

Force  bill,  reported  by  Mr.  Wilkins,  277 ;  passage  of,  277-8,  280-81. 

Forrest,  Tho.,  of  Pa.,  report  of,  on  agriculture,  131-6. 

Forsyth,  John,  of  Ga.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  72;  on  force  bill.  277. 

Forward,  Chaimcey,  on  tariff  of  1828,  217:  report  of,  in  1842,  292. 

Forward,  Walter,  of  Pa  ,  on  tariff  of  1824. 145. 

Foster,  Thos.  S.,  of  Ga.,  on  force  bill,  278. 

France,  high  tunnage  duties  laid  by,  166-7;  industrial  policy  of,  438-9; 

exports  of,  439,  444. 
Free  trade,  remarks  on,  31 ;  opinions  of  British  writers  and  statesmen  on, 

252,  295. 
Frauds  on  the  revenue  by  false  invoices,  176-7,  229,  235,  375;  bill  to  pro- 

vent,  235. 

Frelinghuysen,  Theo.,  of  N.  J.,  on  force  bill,  277. 
Fuller,  Timothy,  of  Mass.,  opposes  duty  on  iron,  1824,  143. 
Gaston,  Wm.,  of  N.  C..  on  tariff  of  1816,  35. 
Germany,  industrial  policy  of,  440-41. 
Gi'uner,  Tho.  W.f  of  Va.,  on  Tyler's  veto,  307. 

Glass,  duty  on,  increased.  88;  factories  of,  ruined,  141;  effect  of  protec- 
tion on  price  of,  236. 

Glassware,  manufacture  and  prices  of,  322. 
Glenham  wool  factory,  in  Dutchess  County,  N.  Y..  li'.M. 
Gold,  Tho.  R.,  of  N.  Y.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  76-80. 
Gorham,  Benj.,  of  Mass.,  on  protection,  235. 

Great  Britain,  revenue  of,  150;  commerce  of,  150;  policy  of,  13,  14,  289, 
437-8 ;  alleged  interference  t)f,  in  our  elections,  337-8  ;  certain  man- 
ufactures of,  438,  441-4. 

Griswold,  Roger,  of  Conn.,  on  tariff  of  1804,  41. 
Gross,  of  Pa.,  on  tariff  bill  1820,  104-9. 
Grundy,  Felix,  of  Tenn.,on  force  bill,  277;  charged  with  nullification  BCD- 

timents,  278-9. 

Habersham,  R.  W.,  of  Ga.,  on  bill  of  1842,  301-4. 
Hale,  Wm.,  of  N.  II.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  86 

JTamilton,  Alex.,  Sec.  of  Treasury,  report  of,  on  manufactures,  25-38. 
Hamilton,  James,  of  S.  C.,  on  woolens  bill,  181  ;  on  bill  of  1828,  220. 
Karrisburg  Convention  in  1827,  197-9. 
Hayne,  R.  Y.,  of  S.  C.,  on  woolens  bill,  196;  on  tariff  of  1828,  226;  on 

proposed  reduction  of  duties,  241-2-3. 
Hemp,  duty  on,  22;  manufactures  of,  protection  of.  petitioned  for,  46-7; 

proposed  duty  on,  in  1828,  223-4,  233 ;  production  and  price  of,  339. 
Hoffman,  Michael,  of  N.  Y.,  on  woolens  bill,  192-4 ;  on  the  bill  of  1828, 
217,  219. 


INDEX.  463 

Holland,  James,  of  N.  C..  on  Lyon's  resolution,  45-6. 

Holmes,  John,  of  Mass.,  on  bill  of  1820,  109. 

Holmes,  John,  of  Maine,  on  tariff  of  1832,  243-4-5;  on  force  bill,  277  ;  on 

constitutionality  of  protection,  404-6. 
Home  market  preferable  to  foreign,  63,  79,  92, 130, 134,  148-9-50;  secured 

by  protection,  189-91. 

Hudson,  Charles,  of  Mass..  on  labor  saving  machinery  and  price.  421-3. 
Hnger,  Benj.,  of  S.  C.,  on  tariff  of  1804,  40,  41 ;  on  tariff  of  1816,  71. 
Huntington,  Jabez  W.,  of  Conn.,  on  Verplanck's  bill,  276. 
Imports,  duties  on,  (see  Duties;)  of  woolen  goods  and  silks,  184. 
Imports  and  exports.  204;  of  iron  and  its  manufactures,  260;  excess  of 
imports,  in   Jackson's   term,  289,  and  Van  Buren's,  289;  effect 
of  excessive  imports,  289. 
Industry,  different  branches  of,  dependent  upon  each  other,  82. 

Ingersoll,  Chas.  J..  of  Pa.,  address  of,  before  American  Institute, ;  on 

Tyler's  veto,  307. 
Ingham,  Sam'l  D.,  of  Pa.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  66-71,  73;  on  tariff  of  1824, 

145-6;  on  woolens  bill,  187,  196;  on  tariff  of  1828,  218. 
Invoices  of  foreign  goods,  fraud u1  en t,  229. 
Interest,  rates  of,  in  England,  297-8.. 

Iron,  duty  on,  1816,  72-3 ;  duty  increased,  88 ;  manufacture  of,  languish- 
ing in  1824,  141 ;  duty  on,  opposed,  1824,  143;  value  of,  250;  im- 
ports of  iron  and  its  manufactures.  259. 
Irving,  \Vm  ,  of  N.  Y.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  71. 
Isacks,  Jacob  C.,  of  Tenn.,  on  force  bill,  278. 

Jackson,  Andrew,  views  of,  on  protection,  2G9-70-1,  412-13;  proclamation 
of,  against  South  Carolina,  272-3;  messages  of,  on  tariff,  270, 
273-4,  350 ;  charged  with  nullification  sentiments,  278-9-80 ; 
views  of,  on  constitutionality  of  protection,  350 ;  letter  of,  to  Dr. 
Coleman,  412-13. 

Jamagin,  Spencer,  of  Tenn..  instructions  and  vote  on  the  tariff  of  1846,  380. 
Jan-is,  Leonard,  of  Maine,  on  Verplanck's  bill,  276. 
Jefferson,  on  protection,  397-8. 
Jenifer,  Daniel,  of  Md.,  on  Verplanck's  bill.  276. 
Johnson,  R.  M.,  of  Ky.,  on  tariff  of  1828,  221,  233. 
Johnson.  Josiah  S.,  of  Lou.,  on  tariff  of  1828,  222. 
Kane,  Eiias  K.,  of  111.,  on  tariff  of  1828,  222. 
Kane,  Judge,  of  Pa.,  Mr.  Folk's  letter  to,  in  1844,  332-3. 
Kennon,  Wm  ,  of  0.,  on  Verplanck's  bill.  276. 
Kin«,  Wm.  R.,  of  Ala.,  on  force  bill,  278.    • 
Kinsey,  Charles,  of  N.  J.,  on  bill  of  1820,  100. 
Knight,  Neh.  R..  of  R.  I.,  on  tariff  of  1832,  246-8. 

Labor,  division  of,  economical,  26;  saved  by  machinery,  62,  77,  155,  201, 
426 ;  measure  of  value,  256 ;  diversification  of,  important,  26, 
409-12,  425,  427. 

Lawrence,  Joseph,  of  Pa.,  on  woolens  bill,  195. 
Lead,  price  of,  reduced,  251. 
Leavitt,  L.  H.,  of  0.,  on  Verplanck's  bill,  276. 
Leigh,  B.  W.,  of  Va.,  mediator  to  pacify  South  Carolina,  284-6. 
"Let  alone'*  policy  considered,  78,  118-9,  127,  165. 
Letter  from  tradesmen  and  manufacturers  of  N.  York  to  Congress,  1788, 17 
Letcher,  R.  P.,  of  Ky.,  moves  to  adopt  Mr.  Clay's  compromise  bill,  276. 
Lewis,  Dixon  H.,  of  Ala.,  on  bill  of  1832,  2C4  ;  on  bill  of  1846,  371-2. 


4  64  ISDEX. 

Livermore,  Arthur.,  of  N.  H.,  on  tariff  of  1824,  145. 

Livingston,  Edward,  of  La.,  on  woolens  bill,  182. 

Love,  John,  of  Va.,  on  Lyon's  resolution,  40. 

Lowndes,  Wra.,  of  S.  C.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  66,  71,  86  ;  on  bill  of  1820,  109. 

Lyon,  Matthew,  of  Ky.,  on  Bacon's  resolution,  47  ;  his  own  resolution,  43-4. 

Macon,  Nathaniel,  of  N.  C.,  on  Lyon's  resolution,  44  5. 

Madison,  James,  on  power  to  regulate  trade,  20,  and  to  encourage  manu- 
factures. 20,  42,  399-403  ;  recommends  protection,  56. 

Maine,  trade  of,  with  the  W.  I.  islands,  209 ;  commerce  of,  affected  bv  the 
tariff  223-4. 

Mallary,  Rollin  C.,  of  Vt.,  introduces  woolens  bill,  171 ;  his  speech  on  the 
bill,  172-9,  182-5-6;  report  of,  on  manufactures  in  1828,  202;  re- 
marks of,  on  the  same,  202-8,  217-18-19 ;  reports  a  bill  for  the 
more  effectual  collection  of  duties,  235  ;  report  of,  in  1832, 271-1. 

Manufacturers,  represented  as  a  dangerous  class,  1 14. 

Manufactures,  power  to  encourage,  20,  24;  advantage  of,  26-9;  market 
created  by,  29,  30 ;  effect  of  protection  of,  on  price,  34-5, 
111-12,  127-8,  145;  various  means  of  promoting,  37-8 ;  re- 
port on,  in  1804,  40 ;  dependent  OE  agriculture,  40 ;  protec- 
tion of,  recommended  by  Madison,  42,  56  ;  Bacon's  resolu- 
tion concerning.  42 ;  statement  of,  in  1810,47-52;  causes 
of  their  promotion,  50,  51 ;  loans  to  manufacturers  suggest- 
ed, 52;  petitions  for  protection  of,  in  1811-12,  52.  53 ;  pe- 
titions for  protection  of  cotton  goods,  56.  59 ;  prohibition  of 
cottons  by  France  and  England,  58 ;  of  cotton,  extent  of, 
about  Providence  in  1815,  59;  of  sugar,  prayed  for,  59,  CO: 
report  on,  in  1816;  of  cotton,  extent  of  in  U.  S..  in  1815, 
CO;  benefits  of,  enumerated,  61;  Dallas'  report  on,  1816, 
62.  65  ;  not  injurious  to  commerce,  61,  68 ;  benefits  of  pro- 
tection of,  illustrated  by  the  practice  of  nations,  90,  96,  97  ; 
introduced  from  necessity,  107;  effect  of.  en  Great  Britain, 
108;  effect  of,  on  agriculture,  114,  129,  143-4,  146;  effect 
of,  on  population,  114-15-16-17;  favorable  to  peace,  117; 
report  of  committee  on,  in  1821,  122-31 ;  bill  reported  in 
1824,  139 ;  cheapened  by  protection,  141-2 ;  effect  of  pro- 
tection of,  on  exports,  152,  153,  174;  on  commerce,  153-4, 
174-5,  191;  on  revenue,  134,  191;  alleged  effects  of  on 
capital,  154,  156 ;  effect  of,  on  public  morals  and  liberty, 
156,  201 ;  constitutionality  of,  157,  396,  408  ;  Mr.  Mallary, 
from  committee  on,  reports  woolens  bill,  171 :  speech  on 
the  bill,  172-9 ;  effects  of  protection  of,  on  agriculture.  61  2, 
82,  143-4:  169-91,  252-3,  270;  not  injurious  to  the  South, 
205;  protection  of,  encouraged  by  the  earlier  presidents. 
228 ;  effect  of  protection  of,  on  price,  [see  Price] ;  report 
on,  in  1842.  by  Mr.  Salstonstall,  288-92;  protected  by  other 
nations,  289;  bill  reported  by  Mr.  Forward,  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  292 ;  prices  of,  in  Richmond,  S22-24 ;  prices 
in  Indiana,  324-26 ;  remarks  of  a  British  paper  concerning, 
235-6. 

Manguro,  Willie  P..  of  N.  C.,  on  tariff  of  1832.  242;  on  tariff  of  1842,  309. 

Marcv,  Wm.  L  n  tariff  of  1832,  243.  L 

Market,,  domestic  preferable  to  foreign,  63  ;  advantages  of,  67, 130-34, 148, 
149,  150. 


INDEX.  465 

Marshall,  Benj.,  letter  of,  on  specific  and  ad  valorem  duties,  388. 

Martin,  Wm.  D.,  of  S.  C.,  on  bill  of  1828,  220. 

Martindale,  Henry  C.,  of  N.  Y.,  on  tariff  of  1824,  144-5;  on  protection, 

235,  238-9. 

McClean,  of  Pa.,  on  the  tariff  bill  of  1846,  354. 
Mcllvaine,  of  Pa.,  on  tariff  bill  of  1846,  355-6. 

McKay,  of  N.  C.,  introduces  a  bill,  1844,  331 ;  reports  a  bill  in  1846,  354. 
McLaue,  Louis,  of  Del.,  on  tariff  bill,  1820,  109;  on  tariff  of  1824,  146; 
on  woolens  bill,  181-2;  as  secretary  of  the  treasury,  recommends 
reduction  of  duties,  276. 

McDuffie,  George,  on  tariff  of  1824,  142-3  ;  reports  a  bill  to  reduce  and 
equalize  duties,  257-8,  and  his  speech,  258 ;  on  tariff  of  1832,  267  ; 
on  force  bill.  281 ;  proposes  to  revive  the  compromise  act,  327. 
Merrick,  Wm.  D.,  of  Md.,  on  tariff  of  1842,  309. 
Miller,  Stephen  D.,  of  S.  C.,  on  force  bill,  277. 
Milnor,  of  Pa.,  on  Lyon's  resolution.  43,  44  ;  on  tariff  of  1816,  71. 
Miner.  Charles,  of  Pa.,  on  woolens  bill,  195. 
Minimum,  defined.  69 ;  on  woolens,  proposed  in  1824,  144 ;  opposed  and 

defended,  187-9. 

Molasses,  high  duty  on,  proposed,  226,  230-31;  imports  of,  230. 
Monopoly,  argument  of,  answered,  178-9,  203. 

Monroe,  James,  Pres.,  recommends  the  encouragement  of  manufactures,  139. 
National  Intelligencer,  on  the  state  of  the  country  in  1823,  138. 
Navigation,  protection  of,  119,  165-6-7;  secondary  to  agriculture  and  man- 
ufactures, 153.     [See  Tunnage  Duties.] 
Navigation  acts,  of  Great  Britain,  13-14. 

Newton,  Thomas,  of  Va.,  on  Lyon's  resolution,  44  ;  on  tariff  of  1816,  60-2, 85. 
Niles,  John  M.,  of  Ct.,  on  the  tariff  bill  of  1846,  377-80. 
Niles'  Register,  on  the  state  of  the  country,  in  1823, 138-9 ;  on  the  increase 

of  revenue  under  the  tariff  of  1846,  390-1. 
Non-intercourse  law.  54. 
Nullification,  the  right  of,  by  a  state,  asserted,  268;  by  South  Carolina, 

threatened,  271-2;  acts  of,  repealed.  3:-S4-5. 
Owen,  R.  D.,  of  la.,  on  tariff  of  1846,  358-62. 
Pan-is,  A.  K.,  of  Maine,  on  tariff  of  1828,  221,  223-5. 
Peel,  Sir  Robert,  on  protection  and  free  trade,  295.  ?03.         » 
Petition  of  tradesmen,  &c.,  of  Baltimore,  in  1789,  18;  from  citizens  do., 

in  1842,  298  ;  of  citizens  of  New  York,  19;  fro.vs  Boston,  19. 
Pickering,  Timothy,  of  Mass.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  66,  71. 
Pickman,  Benj.,  of  Mass.,  on  Lyon's  resolution,  4->. 
Pins,  manufacture  of,  under  tariff  of  1842,  322. 
Pitk'in,  Timothy,  of  Conn.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  71-2. 

Polk,  James  K.,  on  Verplanck's  bill,  276;  letters  of,  in  1844,  to  govcrnoi 

of  Tennessee,  and  Judge  Kane,  on  protection,  332-3;  messages  uf. 

on  protection,  342-4;  fraudulent  electioneering  for,  in  1844,  355.  376 

Price,  effect  of  protection  on,  111-12,  127-8,  145,  152,  236,  245-8,  250-51,. 

322-25,  338. 

Protection,  effect  of,  upon  price;  [see  Price;]  objections  to,  answered, 
151-7  ;  effect  <.f,  on  exports,  152,  on  navigation,  153,  on  com- 
merce, 61, 153-4,  174,  191,  253-4,  435-6,  on  the  revenue,  154, 
191,  on  capital,  154,  156,  on  public  morals.  156,  on  agricul- 
ture, 189-91;  constitutionality  of,  157,  350,  396-408;  en- 
couraged by  all  the  presidents,  228;  effect  of,  on  the  produc- 
tion of  cotton,  264-67;  on  importation,  289. 


406  m>EX. 

Randolph,  John,  of  Va.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  80,  85-6;  on  tariff  of  1828,  220. 

Report  on  manufactures,  in  1804,  40;  of  Mr.  Gallatin,  47-52;  of  Mr.  Dal- 
las,  62-65  ;  of  committee  of  ways  and  means  of  bill  in  1816,  65;  oi 
com.  on  manuf.,  in  1821,  122-131 ;  of  com.  on  agriculture,  1821, 
131-6:  of  bill  in  1824,  139;  on  wool  and  woolens,  171 ;  of  Secre- 
tary Rush,  December,  1827,  199-202;  of  Mr.  Mallary,  in  1828, 
202;  report  of  Secretary  Walker  on  tariff,  344-5. 

Resolutions,  of  Virginia  and  Kentucky,  of  1798-9,  allusion  to,  279  90. 

Revenue,  frauds  on.  noticed,  64, 176-7,  229,  235,  375  ;  effect  of  protection 
on,  154,  191,  427-8;  affected  by  the  ability  or  inability  of  the 
people  to  buy,  184-5,  in  1824,  &c.,  184;  under  the  act  of  1846, 
300-1  2;  of  Great  Britain,  150,  295. 

Rhe.t.  R  B.,  of  S.  C.,  resolution  of.  to  revive  compromise,  327. 

Richmond  Enquirer,  on  tariff  of  1842,  313  ;  Richmond,  Va.,  merchants  of, 
publish  livt  of  prices,  322-324. 

Rwbbins,  Asher,  of  R.  I.,  on  tariff  of  1828,  221;  on  tariff  of  1832,  242, 
252-5  ;  on  constitutionality  of  protection,  403. 

Robertson,  Tho.  B.,  of  La.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  66,  71. 

Rockwell,  John  A.,  of  Ct.,  on  tariff  of  1846,  365-70. 

Ross,  John,  of  Pa.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  73. 

Root,  Erastus.  of  N.  Y.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  71,  73  ;  on  Verplanck's  bill,  276; 
on  force  bill.  278. 

Rosevelt..  James  T.,  of  N.  Y.,  on  Tyler's  veto,  307. 

Rouait.  John,  of  Ky.,  on  tariff  of  1828,  2ii± 

Rush,  Richard,  Sec.  of  the  Treas.,  report  of  manufactures,  1827,  199-202. 

Russia,  industrial  policy  of,  441. 

Salt,  duties  on,  238-9. 

Sakonslall,  L  ,  of  Mass.,  report  and  speech  of,  1842,  288-92,  297-301. 

Schenck,  Peter  II.,  statement  of  respecting  Fishkill  woolen  factory,  291. 

Seybert  on  American  tunnage,  165  6. 

Sheep,  estimated  number  and  products  of,  416. 

Ship-building  affected  by  duty  on  iron,  1824.  143,  165. 

Silsbee,  Nath'l..  of  Mass.,  on  tariff  bill  of  1820,  101,  109,  112. 

Smith,  Wm.,  of  Md  ,  on  bills  of  1816.  1820,  1828,  60,  71-2,  86,  100,  225. 

South  America,  market  in.  for  manufactures.  68. 

South  Carolina,  resistance  of,  to  the  tariff  laws,  271-3;  resistance  aban- 
doned. 284-5  ;  opposition  of,  to  the  tariff,  341. 

Spain,  industrial  policy  of,  439. 

Specie,  hoarding  of,  said  not  to  be  desirable,  103.  162. 

Specific  duties,  preferred  toad  valorem, 300-1,  388;  recommended  by  Bu- 
chanan, 392. 

Sprague.  Pelejr,  of  Maine,  on  tariff  of  1828,  217;  on  tariff  of  1832.  212. 

Steubenville  factory,  185,  190-1. 

Stevenson,  Andrew,  of  Va.,  on  woolens  bill,  181. 

Stevenson,  James  S.,  of  Pa.,  on  woolens  bill,  181,  194-5,  on  bill  of  1828, 

208,  219. 
Stewart,  Andrew,  of  Pa.,  on  woolens  bill,  189-91, 195  ;  on  bill  of  1828.  218  ; 

on  bill  of  1832,  259-62;  on  Sec.  Walker's  tariff  report,  349-54. 
fitorrs,  Henry  R.,  of  N.  Y.,  on  the  tariff  bill  of  1820, 104, 110;  on  bill  of 

1828,  218. 

Strong,  Solomon,  of  Mass..  on  tariff  of  1816,  66,  73. 
Sugar,  fall  of  price  of,  264. 


INDEX.  4<j7 

Sutherland,' Joel  B.,  of  Pa.,  on  bill  of  1828,  219;  on  bill  of  1832  264 

Tariff,  act  of  1789,  21;  acts  of  1797,  1800, 1804,  39-41 ;  bill  of  181(5.  65-80  ; 
acts  of  1817  and  1818,  87,  88;  memorials  for  revision  of,  89-9H; 
American  and  British  tariffs  compared,  93;  bill  of  1820,  93-121  ; 
bill  of  1824,  139-68;  burdens  one  class  *>  benefit  another,  151  2; 
effects  of,  [see  Protection;]  bill  of  1828,  passage  of,  in  the  house, 
220,  in  the  senate,  234  ;  bill  reported  in  1832,  257,  259,  and  passed, 
207-8;  compromise  bill  of  1833,  276,281-3;  American,  compared 
with  foreign,  291 ;  bill  reported  by  Mr.  Saltonstall,  in  1842,  287-92  ; 
by  Secretary  Forward,  292;  the* latter  debated  and  passed,  292- 
306;  vetoed  and  repassed,  306-9;  effects  of,  311-18;  remarks  on, 
by  the  American  press,  311-14;  by  the  British  press,  314-16;  of 
Russia,  Portugal,  Belgium,  France,  German  league,  315-16;  oppo- 
sition to,  in  South  Carolina,  318  ;  remarks  on,  in  England,  319;  re- 
marks on,  by  "  A  Merchant,"  320-21;  effect  of,  on  production  of 
wool,  321-2;  effect  of,  on  certain  articles,  388-9;  bill  of  1846  re- 
ported, 354  ;  passed  in  the  House,  371 ;  passed  in  the  Senate,  380  1 ; 
effects  of,  382  7,  390-2;  English  papers  on,  387;  speech  of  Web- 
ster on,  388-90  ;  denounced  in  Pennsylvania,  893-5 ;  constitutionality 
of  a  protective,  considered,  396-408;  history  of,  reviewed.  430  33. 

Taylor,  John  W.,  of  N.  Y.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  66  ;  on  tariff  cf  1828,  218. 

Telfair,  Thomas,  of  Ga.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  74-76,  86. 

Tod,  John,  of  Pa.,  report  of,  in  1824,  139;  remarks,  139-42,  144,  163-5. 

Tracy,  Albert  II.,  of  N.  Y.,  on  tariff  of  1824,  144. 

Trade,  foreign,  protected,  119-20;  regulating  itself,  165-6. 

Tunnage,  protected,  119,  139. 

Tunnage  duties,  24,  54,  87,  165,  167.     [See  Duties.] 

Tyler,  John,  of  Ya.,  on  tariff  bill  of  1820, 101-4 ;  on  tariff  of  1832,  242  ;  on 
force  bill,  277 ;  message  of,  relating  to  tariff,  286-7 ;  vetoes  of, 
305-7. 

Unity  of  interests,  122-3,  182,  198. 

Yerplanck,  Gillian  C.,  of  N.  Y.,  reports  a  bill  to  reduce  duties,  270. 

Veto,  by  Tyler,  of  several  bills,  and  action  of  the  House  on,  305-7. 

Walker,  Robt.  J.,  Sec.  of.  Treas.,  report  of,  on  tariff,  334;  report  reviewed 
in  National  Intelligencer,  345-9. 

Warehousing  system,  suggested,  296-7. 

Washington,  on  protection,  397,  412. 

Webster,  Daniel,  of  N.  H.,  on  tariff  of  1816.  72,  73 ;  of  Mass.,  on  tariff  of 
J824,  158-63;  on  bill  of  1828,  227-33;  on  force  bill,  277;  on 
Clay's  compromise  tariff  bill,  282  ;  on  the  bill  of  1846,  376-7. 

Whitman,  of  Mass.,  on  bill  of  1820,  109,  113-14. 

Wilkins,  Wm.,  of  Pa.,  on  tariff  of  1832,  242;  reports  the  "  force  bill,"  277. 

Williams,  Reuel,  of  Maine,  on  tariff  of  1842,  309. 

Woodcock,  David,  of  N.  Y.,  on  tariff  of  1828,  214-17. 

Wool,  proposed  duty  on,  in  1816,  73;  in  1828,  203,  231-33,  in  1842,  293, 
297 ;  importation  of,  from  South  America,  144-5-6-7 ;  duties  on 
coarse,  207,  210-17. 

Woolens,  manufactories  of,  ruined,  141  ;  woolens  bill  of  1827,  introduced 
by  Mr.  Mallary,  171  ;  speech  on  the  hill  by  Mr.  Mallary,  172-9; 
passage  of,  166;  capital  invested  in,  172;  imports  of,  184;  pro- 
posed duty  on,  in  1828,  231,  233  ;  imports  of  wool  and  woolens 
260. 

Worcester  county,  Mass.,  manufactures  of,  253-4. 


468  INDEX. 

Wright  Robert,  of  Md.,  on  tariff  of  1816,  86. 

Wright,  John  C.,  of  0.,  on  woolens  bill,  195 ;  on  bill  of  1828,  219. 

Wright,  Silas,  of  N.  Y.,  on  tariff  of  1828,  210-14,  217,  218,  219;  on 
tariff  of  1842..  307,  309. 

Yarn,  cotton,  comparative  prices  of,  in  Great  Britain  and  United  States,  237. 

leas  and  nays,  on  tariff  bill,  1804,  41 ;  on  tariff  of  1816,  86-7;  on  bill  of 
1824,  168-9;  on  woolens  bill,  196;  on  tariff  of  1828,  234;  on  tariff 
of  1832,  267 ;  on  the  force  bill,  280-81 ;  on  Clay's  compromise  bill, 
283-4 ;  on  the  bill  of  1842,  308  ;  on  the  bill  of  1846,  381. 

Young,  Ebenezer,  of  Ct.,  on  protection,  235-7  ;  on  bill  of  1832,  264. 

Zoll  Verein,  organization  of,  440. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 


his  bookTs  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


^ 


L  \& 


Du     - 

:_:_  .- 


(B9311810 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


VB  06086 


M 


HF 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


